Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Job Creation (Ayrshire)

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any new initiatives to announce to improve the employment situation in Ayrshire.

The Under-Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Government have introduced many new initiatives to improve the employment situation in Ayrshire and new developments recently announced are proving their success.

Mr. McKelvey: You, Mr. Speaker, will be as disappointed as am I by that reply. My question referred to new initiatives. Is the Under-Secretary aware that I am disappointed that he is unable to institute new initiatives? I had in mind freeport status for Prestwick. If the Minister will give the House the assurance that he will continue to press for such status, the people of Ayrshire will continue to live in hope.

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are considering applications for freeport status. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome recent developments in Ayrshire, such as the announcement by SCI Systems Incorporated, with the potential for providing 500 new jobs during the next four years at Irvine. I should have thought that all hon. Members would give a warm welcome to the achievement of British Aerospace at Prestwick in winning a £20 million order from America for 12 Jetstream 31 aircraft, against tough competition from major American companies.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend underline yet again the great success of British Aerospace at Prestwick in introducing the successful Jetstream aircraft, which was conceived and is being built in Scotland? The Opposition should congratulate those concerned, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has been greatly involved with the company.

Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Jetstream is a marvellous Scottish aircraft and a fine achievement. I am sure that this week's announcement will be followed by further orders.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that he would give immediate enjoyment to the people of Ayrshire if he would put more pressure on his hon. Friend the Minister of State,

Department of Energy to issue drilling licences for the exploration of oil and gas resources in the Clyde? Does he accept that if he did that Ayrshire would have a new initiative, because it could get the oil and gas out of the Clyde and so provide jobs for the people of Ayrshire?

Mr. Stewart: The Government have made it clear that oil development in the area, if properly controlled, would be welcomed, but as yet there is no evidence that oil exists in that area.

Mr. Lambie: Nonsense.

Mr. Stewart: It is wrong to risk raising false hopes. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I suggest that he reads what Mr. Ian Clark has said on the subject.

Mr. Malone: Does my hon. Friend concede that in considering the argument for freeports in Scotland one of the main factors should be the qualifications of the applicants, bearing in mind the guidelines laid down by the Treasury? Does he agree that the ideal qualificant is the city of Aberdeen?

Mr. Stewart: I have said that the Government are considering the various applications for freeport status, and the House knows that my hon. Friend is a stalwart proponent of the city of Aberdeen.

Mr. Foulkes: As the current movement for freeport status started in Ayrshire, and as most of the development will come from North America, would it not be a travesty if Prestwick were not designated as one of the freeports in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: The freeport applications are still being examined. We hope that selected sites will be announced shortly.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that Prestwick is an important national airport and that it is vital that it should continue to be so as long as a need for jobs exists in that part of Ayrshire? Will my hon. Friend ensure that all of his hon. Friends are aware of its importance?

Mr. MacKay: I agree with my hon. Friend. I readily endorse the substantial efforts which the British Airports Authority is making to develop traffic through that airport. My hon. Friend will be aware that 1983 traffic levels at Prestwick were better than they were in 1982, and in 1984 they are likely to be even better.

Geriatric Beds

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the provision of geriatric beds related to the relevant populations for each of the Scottish health boards; and if he is satisfied with the current level of provision in each area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): With permission, I shall arrange for the relevant figures for each health board to be printed in the Official Report. For Scotland as a whole the total geriatric bed complement at 31 March 1982 represented 39·2 beds per 1,000 of the population aged 75 and over. This is close to the 40 beds per 1,000 recommended in the report, "Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the Eighties". There are variations between areas, but I am satisfied that all health boards are endeavouring to meet the needs of their areas.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister concede that in the truncated debate in the Scottish Grand Committee the Secretary of State said that improvements were made when phase 1 of the Dunfermline and West Fife hospital was opened? May we have an assurance that the improvements in Fife will continue, with support for phase 2 of that hospital in order to bring the number of acute beds in Fife into proportion with the need in the area?

Mr. MacKay: The question is about geriatric provision. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that the Fife health board provided an additional 60 beds at Whyteman's Brae last November and that work is well advanced on a further 120 beds for the elderly in Dunfermline. With recent developments at Glenrothes and Stratheden hospitals, that means that considerable improvements have been made in Fife for the care of the elderly.

Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the improvements in Fife under the present Government, but does he recognise that the improvements involve catching up? Will he ensure that the Fife health board continues to improve geriatric and psychogeriatric provision in the area?

Mr. MacKay: I agree that we are talking about a catching-up exercise by the Fife health board, which has gained substantially from the more equitable distribution of Health Service funds. It stands to gain further from the continuation of that redistribution. I welcome the priority that Fife health board has given to the care of geriatrics in its use of the additional funds.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister accept that the average which he considers reasonable hides wide discrepancies? Does he accept also that it is not good enough that beds should only be available 100 miles away from some areas where they are needed? Will the Minister try to ensure that enough beds are made available in every area in Scotland?

Mr. MacKay: In my main reply I conceded that variations exist in different areas. That is one of the main matters to which health boards must address their attention. They must ensure that geriatric beds are provided where the demand is, and not, as sometimes happens for historic reasons, in areas which are a long way from the demand. That is part and parcel of the priority which I expect health boards to give to geriatric care.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend accept that in an area with an aging population—

Mr. Foulkes: Speak for yourself.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to think of himself as an aging person. Does my hon. Friend accept that many health boards consider geriatric care in terms of today rather than taking the next few years into account? Does he agree that in many areas there will not be enough beds for geriatrics and psychogeriatrics in the future?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. Health boards must plan not only for today but for demographic changes between now and the end of the century, and I assure my hon. Friend that health boards do that. When considering the plans that they have submitted to my Department we shall examine carefully the provision for likely demand and the way that it will change in different areas.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Cleland hospital in my constituency has a long waiting list? Is he aware also that some people have to travel as much as 100 miles to visit patients there? Is he further aware that the hospital board and its administrators are helpful, but that they can do nothing without the beds? What does the Minister propose to do about hospital care in Lanarkshire?

Mr. MacKay: Lanarkshire health board, like some other health boards in Scotland, has a problem in matching its beds to the demand of the area. Let me repeat what I said. Lanarkshire, like other health boards, has to take account in its planning of geriatric provision now and in the future. I have made geriatric care a priority, and I continue to underline that.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister accept that many of the authorities which are dependent on a share of the redistribution for the day-to-day business of running the Health Service in their areas are no longer able to finance or even forecast an expansion along the lines recommended by the SHAPE report in 1980? Does he agree that the present funding of the Health Service is inadequate to meet the responsibilities of Scotland as a whole and to avoid the disparity in provision at which he hinted today? He did not have the guts to come here today and tell us the exact position, although no doubt it will appear on the record. The fact is that the authorities do not have the money to do what he is asking them to do.

Mr. MacKay: The disparity in provision existed in 1979 when we took office. It was inherited from the Labour party. Since 1979 we have increased the amount of money for the National Health Service. It is now at a historic high. We have put more money into the Health Service in Scotland than has ever been put in before—far more than one would imagine from the crocodile tears of the Labour party.

Following is the information:


Health Board
Geriatric Bed Complement
Rate per 1,000 population over 75


Argyll and Clyde
994
45·3


Ayrshire and Arran
631
33·4


Borders
230
30·1


Dumfries and Galloway
329
38·5


Fife
588
32·4


Forth Valley
553
43·6


Grampian
964
35·2


Greater Glasgow
2,277
42·1


Highland
399
37·3


Lanarkshire
1,094
51·5


Lothian
1,498
36·3


Orkney
51
41·4


Shetland
87
64·0


Tayside
906
36·2


Western Isles
89
35·4


Scotland
10,690
39·2

Notes

1. Bed complement at 31 March 1982 including joint user and contractual beds.
2. Population as at 30 June 1981.

Scottish Office

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,


Official Report, c. 861–62, what estimate he has made of the additional costs that would fall on the people of Scotland if the Scottish Office were to be put under the control of an elected Scottish Assembly.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The 1978 scheme of devolution was estimated to cost £13 million. Any new scheme would clearly cost considerably more than that. If the Assembly adopted expensive additional policies, the cost to Scottish taxpayers would be greater still.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is it not humbug for the Secretary of State to suggest that an extra tier of Government would cost more money when that extra tier of Government already exists, warts and all, in the form of his own Department? Will he admit that last night's events show that the House is not up to the job of scrutinising Scottish affairs properly, because many Tory Members voted against repressive legislation for England, and the same Tory Members are apparently so ignorant of what is going on that on 5 December they voted for virtually identical legislation for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I do not recall Opposition Members objecting when, if one likes to put it that way, Labour votes in England forced through nationalisation measures. On the question of extra expenditure, if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that a Scottish Assembly would not cost the Scottish taxpayer more, I am not sure why his party is apparently proposing extra tax-raising powers on the Scots to pay for it.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of Scots want less money spent on government, not more, and that the last elections in north Tayside showed that there was no demand whatever for a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Younger: I am certain that Scots particularly would like the Government to use the money that they take from people as wisely as possible, and I agree with my hon. Friend that there is little sign of any interest in a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Wilson: As the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely impotent in the Cabinet when it comes to saving Scottish industries, does he agree that the price of not having a Scottish Parliament is the closure of the smelter at Invergordon and the attempt to close the shipyard of Scott Lithgow? Does he not think that Scotland needs a Parliament to defend its basic industries?

Mr. Younger: If there had been a Scottish Assembly when those things happened, it would not have made the slightest difference to any of them. If the hon. Gentleman had had his way and there had been an entirely separate Scotland, all those businesses would have been closed down long ago.

Mr. Maxton: As 99·5 per cent. of the civil servants employed by the Scottish Office work in Edinburgh, does it not make nonsense of the Secretary of State's argument that there would be an increase in bureaucracy if we had a Scottish Assembly and that extra costs would be involved in creating an elected Assembly? Does he object to spending money on democracy?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's first figures are wholly inaccurate and quite wrong, and the rest of his question therefore falls. As for the rest of his

supplementary question and the matter of paying for a Scottish Assembly, if the Labour party thought that it would cost nothing, it would not be proposing extra tax-raising powers on the Scots to pay for it.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly has run out of money shows that market forces are at work?

Mr. Younger: I dare say that that is right, and there is no doubt that the presence of a Scottish Assembly—this view is held widely on both sides of the House—would not provide a solution to many of the problems with which we must deal.

Mr. Dewar: Whatever costs the Secretary of State invents for a Scottish Assembly in order to blacken the concept, will he accept that it is nothing like the cost that Scotland has had to pay in the last four or five years for the damaging and divisive legislation which his Administration have put on the statue book?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree, and the hon. Gentleman should know from the history of the last four or five years that large sums of United Kingdom money have been spent to improve the situation in Scotland during a particularly difficult recession. As for devolution generally, I rest on the wise words of the present Leader of the Opposition, who quoted Bevin as saying:
If you open that Pandora's box, you will find it full of Trojan horses",
and added:
That conveys my feelings on Devolution precisely." — [Official Report, 15 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 468.]

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one: of the principal reasons why many Scots are against a Scottish Assembly is precisely because Labour Members would give it tax-raising powers—or teeth, as they call them—and does he agree that that form of levy on Scottish business would destroy rather than create jobs?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right, and we have seen enough examples in recent years of the way in which irresponsible people in Scotland can put levies on business, which destroys jobs. The principal disadvantage that I see in the whole debate is that it is well known that the Labour party is so hopelessly divided on the issue that it has no prospect of introducing such a thing anyway.

Housebuilding

Mr. Craigen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of public sector houses he expects to be completed in 1984–85; and how many he expects to be modernised in the same year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I expect there to be a modest increase in the number of public sector houses completed in 1984–85 over the level of 4,500 houses completed in 1982–83. Improvements of public sector houses are also running at a high level, which I hope can continue.

Mr. Craigen: Where will these modest increases take place? Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the paucity of new starts, especially for sheltered housing accommodation? What steps does he intend to take — apart from reducing the housing support grant and other measures that he has already set in train—to ensure that there is a continuing improvement in new build and modernisation programmes in Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the overall provisional allocation for 1984–85 is £404 million, compared with £350 million in 1983–84. He will also be aware that those who decide to increase their rate fund contributions are removing money which would otherwise be available for the sort of provision that he wants to see, and I hope that the city of Glasgow will bear that in mind when it takes decisions in the near future.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Under-Secretary aware that despite having sold about 6·5 per cent. of the corporation houses in Kirkcaldy district, as a result of the cut in housing grant to that area, houses that were planned to be built in 1984–85 have had to be postponed for two or three years? What relevance do his remarks about the overall provisional allocation for this year have in that context?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the members of Kirkcaldy council are as aware as the hon. Gentleman that the answer lies largely in their hands. He gave the figure for the number of houses that they have sold. If they pursue a vigorous sales policy on council houses, they will be able to create the receipts to do what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that 1,586 council houses have been sold by Perth and Kinross district council, that that council assured me this morning that it is having no difficulty in the rural areas in housing people who want council houses and that it welcomes the shift towards the building of sheltered housing?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House how successful his district council has been in this respect. It is an example that other local authorities could usefully follow.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will know that England and Wales enjoyed the benefit of a national house condition survey in 1981. When may we expect a similar facility north of the border?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that survey was based on examples of information gathered from local authorities, which should know more than anyone else about their own housing position. Information from local authorities is more valuable than a survey.

Fish Processing Industry

Mr. Malone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has had from the fish processing industry in Aberdeen.

Mr. John MacKay: Last month my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State received a submission from the Federation of North East Scotland Fish Merchants Associations seeking financial aid for the fish processing industry in its area. After full consideration, my right hon. and noble Friend has informed the federation that its case for aid has not been proved.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will be aware that that answer is disappointing, especially to the small firms engaged in fish processing in the Aberdeen area. Will he concede that those firms form an important and substantial part of the fishing industry in the north-east of Scotland, particularly as they subcontract a substantial amount of work to larger firms, but have been disadvantaged by the fact that they cannot receive EEC aid? Will my hon.

Friend do all that he can to make sure that the Sea Fish Industry Authority tries to organise some kind of assistance so that at least a portion of the cake of Government aid going to the fishing industry as a whole will go to these hard-pressed firms?

Mr. MacKay: We have encouraged the SFIA to develop, in consultation with the fishing industry, its proposals to increase the consumption of fish and its ideas for the processing side of the industry. We have asked the small business division of the Scottish Development Agency to contact the federation to see whether there is any way in which it can assist small firms in this industry.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Younger: I last met leaders of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland when I addressed the president's council of the CBI in Glasgow on 7 November during the CBI annual conference. My principal theme was the importance of the new technologically based enterprises increasingly being attracted to Scotland. I shall be meeting the chairman and director of CBI Scotland on Friday 20 January to discuss CBI Scotland's Budget representations.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the CBI in Scotland shares the concern of the House and the Scottish people about the future of Scott Lithgow? Does not the only practicable solution for the future of Scott Lithgow lie in the acquisition of the yard by an enterprise or consortium, whether United Kingdom or foreign, with the expertise and commercial reputation to build sophisticated oil-related structures? If my right hon. Friend agrees — [Interruption.] This is an important point, to which Opposition Members would do well to listen. If my right hon. Friend agrees with me, can he give an assurance that he and his Ministers will do all in their power to enable this acquisition to take place and thus to protect an important part of the Scottish industrial structure?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I share his concern and that of all hon. Members about the serious situation that we have seen develop on the lower Clyde. I am only too willing to do anything that I can to assist in ensuring that somehow, if possible, the rig will be completed on the Clyde.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Has the Secretary of State, in his discussions with the CBI, or in his mind, had clear signs of, on the one hand the cost of the immediate closure of the yard and, on the other, making it worth while for Britoil to agree to the completion of the rig?

Mr. Younger: The problem does not appear to be primarily a matter of cost. The calculation of the balance of cost depends crucially on what view British Shipbuilders takes of the likely cost of completing the rig under the present contract. The principal problem is that, for whatever reason, the customer lost confidence in the supplier and decided to terminate the contract.

Dr. Godman: The Secretary of State spoke of confidence. When will he defend, with conviction and


principle, the economic and social interests of the people employed at Scott Lithgow, because he is not doing that now?

Mr. Younger: As far back as last April I held the first of many meetings with all concerned and spelt out in clear terms that I was concerned about the future of the contract, and I am only sorry that there was no quicker response to the suggestions that I then made.

Dr. Godman: They want guidance and leadership from the Secretary of State, and they are not getting it.

Mr. Budgen: When my right hon. Friend meets leaders of the Scottish CBI, will he remind them that every time they ask for special privileges for Scotland they get them and there is a counter-reaction in the West Midlands and West Midlanders say that they also need regional benefits? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the West Midlands gets regional benefits he will be a party to undermining the Government's strategy?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate and share my hon. Friend's proper anxiety about the West Midlands. Nevertheless, I remind him that regional policy is not Scottish, but British, policy and that it has served Britain extremely well for the past 25 years. It has created about 100,000 new jobs in Scotland and about 500,000 in Britain as a whole.

Mr. Millan: Is it not clear that no third party will take over Scott Lithgow, except at public expense? Does that not mean that the most obvious, direct and cheapest means of saving the yard is to get Britoil and British Shipbuilders into negotiations? Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Government stand back and do not intervene to bring that about they will be conniving at the massacre of thousands of jobs?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should be best placed to understand that the contract between British Shipbuilders and Britoil was perfectly freely entered into. It contained normal terms and clauses, which were freely agreed between the two parties. For whatever reason, during the course of the contract the customer lost confidence in the firm's ability to complete the rig on time and terminated the contract in a perfectly normal commercial way.

Mr. Henderson: Have the leaders of the CBI in Scotland given my right hon. Friend any preliminary reaction to the Government's White Paper on regional policy? Have they commented on the merits of increasing the emphasis on the importance of service industries for job creation and the extent to which greater selectivity in terms of quality of project is as important as price?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I have not had detailed discussions with the CBI in Scotland about the proposed regional policy, but its initial reaction to the general tenor of the proposals, especially those to bring service industries more into regional policy and to make the policy more job-related, has been favourable.

Mr. Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only people who do not understand that there is only a short gap of time available in which to take action to solve the problem at Scott Lithgow is the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues? Does he agree that he has used the opportunity provided by that gap of time to insult the workers at Scott Lithgow, as did his right hon.

Friend the Prime Minister a month ago, and the junior Minister? The right hon. Gentleman could lift his little finger now and solve the problem. If he does not, we shall have horrendous unemployment in that isolated section of the Clyde. He is not aware of the dangers of the situation and appears ignorant of the possibilities.

Mr. Younger: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has a constituency interest in this issue, for nearly one year I publicly and obviously warned everyone that this problem was likely to occur. Opposition Members have not said one word to encourage people involved at Scott Lithgow to realise the seriousness of the problem. That is a disgraceful commentary on their inability to take part in this important matter. With regard to the future, I have always made it clear that I shall do anything that I can to ensure, if that is possible, that the rig is completed on the Clyde, by some means or other.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in view of the state of the Scottish economy, his work rate will not stand much examination? Why, in view of his record on Linwood, on the pulp mill at Fort William and on the smelter at Invergordon, should we trust him to try to save the jobs at Scott Lithgow?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to take such a selective view. I should have thought that he, of all people, who has good reason to thank the Government for helping to bring Wang to the area near that which he represents, would be rather more evenhanded.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only now, during the death throes of Scott Lithgow, that the work force and management have realised the desperate circumstances? The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) calls for leadership. May we assure him—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree — that there is leadership from the Government? We want a categorical assurance to my right hon. Friend from the work force and management that if there is any possibility of this yard being saved they will hold to whatever regulations he requires should be implemented to ensure the yard's future.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his views. There has never been, and is not now, any disagreement between me and the representatives from Scott Lithgow, whom I have seen several times. If there are faults, they are no doubt on the side of the management and the work force, and that is not a matter of disagreement between them and me. It is a little hard, as I am the only person who has been giving any leadership during the past nine months — [Interruption.] The trouble is that I did not give it sufficiently loudly for those concerned to hear and understand me and do anything about the problems.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is deep and justified anger in Scotland at the lamentable spectacle of him sitting paralysed and ineffective while thousands of jobs on the lower Clyde are lost? Worse still, he is trying to cover his own glaring inadequacy by misconceived and tasteless attacks on the work force, which he is trying to make the scapegoat for the whole catastrophe. Will he now realise that if he had acted in a timely and decisive manner it would not be a matter of having to scramble around looking for some private sector rescue operation?
If it is possible for a third party to complete the contract, why is it not possible for British Shipbuilders to do that, given that, either way, it has to fund the losses to date? Does the right hon. Gentleman not at least realise that the minimum that we can ask is that he gets British Shipbuilders and Britoil around a table now to ensure that there is no possibility of disagreement about saving this contract, which is in the interests of the workers on the lower Clyde and, equally important, of this country if it is to have a creditable position in North sea technology?

Mr. Younger: I should be more impressed with the hon. Gentleman's well-prepared speech if he, or for that matter his predecessor, had uttered one word of leadership to the people at Scott Lithgow during the past year, either to sign the working agreement or not to go on the planned national strike. Not one word was said from the Opposition about that matter.

Dr. Godman: A positive response was made in September.

Mr. Younger: I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands that there is no difference of opinion between me and the work force, to which I have spoken about the fact that there have been faults on the side of the management and the unions concerned. Although I totally share the great anxiety of everyone about these problems, I at least can claim to have been trying to return leadership for nearly a year to put the problem right, and I have had no support whatever from the Opposition.

Mr. Maxton: Resign.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a good run on this very important matter. In fairness to those who have questions further down the Order Paper, we should now proceed more rapidly.

Oil-related Industries

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to encourage the further development of oil-related industries in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Our fiscal and licensing-policies are designed to maintain the momentum of exploration and development in the North sea. Their success is evident with four new oilfields and a 300 km pipeline from Fulmar to St. Fergus approved since the last Budget, and the prospect of a substantial number of further approvals this year. Scotland will continue to benefit from a full and fair opportunity to compete for this business, as it has done so successfully in recent years.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he acknowledge that the loss of major capacity in offshore technology, which will result from the closure of Scott Lithgow, will mean the removal of a vital component in our ability to compete in this area? Will he further acknowledge that his hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) has stated that the solution to the problem might be a private buyer? It is difficult to conceive of a private buyer taking over a yard which the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Government have spent many months running down, condemning and rubbishing. Will he acknowledge that that will not enable Scott Lithgow to maintain its proper place in oilfield technology?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him that to lose entirely the capability for building all these forms of oil-related structure would be a retrograde step for this country.
As to the events that have led up the situation we are dealing with today, I repeat that throughout the past nine months it has been clear that this was in grave danger of happening. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can at least claim that they have taken some chance of leadership and have said something constructive to try to persuade people to be sensible, and I pay tribute to them for that. It is only a pity that the official Opposition did not join them.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done what they could in financial terms? Over £100 million has gone into Scott Lithgow to shore it up so far, and the only ultimate way of saving Scott Lithgow is to remove it from the present management and put it into private hands. In the past, before the nationalisation of Scott Lithgow, that yard was in profit. It did some of the best work in shipbuilding that was ever done on the Clyde. That yard was known as the jewel in the crown of shipbuilding in the Clyde. Will he comment on that?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intense interest that she has been taking in this important matter. On the question of finance, she is, of course, right. I should have mentioned earlier in these exchanges that the Government have not only been trying to persuade all concerned to do what they could to regain confidence between the supplier and the contractor in this matter, but have put in literally millions of pounds worth of money to help keep the contract going for as long as it has continued, amounting to approximately £13,000 per man employed. As to the future, what is necessary is to see whether there is a way of building up a management for this contract that will carry the conviction and the confidence of the person who is going to buy it, that is, Britoil. It is to that end that I and my colleagues will, of course, do everything we can to help.

Mr. Ron Brown: If the Secretary of State is really interested in oil-related industries, will he use his considerable influence to ensure that an order is placed with the Leith yard of Henry Robb Ltd, a yard which is so important to the economy in eastern Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about that yard, but the decision about its future is very much one for British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures the Government have introduced have been reflected in the high-tech-company which is going into the enterprise zone at Arbroath which is part of the Tayside enterprise zone? Is this not real evidence of Government policy working?

Mr. Younger: It is the case that, when these very large and extremely difficult industrial crises arise, there are two levels of activity which any responsible Government must take. The first is to do everything they can to try to build some new activity from the old one that has come to grief, and that is what we are trying to do in this case. Secondly, in the regrettable event of a new enterprise not being successful, the Government must do all they can to help


the area concerned. There are numerous examples in Scotland of very successful activities funded by the Government and the SDA in recent years.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Secretary of State aware that I do not agree with routine party insults against him? [Interruption.] Having seen several Secretaries of State in operation against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other people, and given the appalling economic policy within which he operates, I do not think he has done badly. [Interruption.] It is an appalling climate, created largely by his Government. Will he also bear in mind that, unless he will take a constructive initiative and bring Scott Lithgow and Britoil together at this stage, he will put a slur on what he has done, which is quite unnecessary, and miss the opportunity to save a vital Scottish industry?

Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. [Interruption.] The House is always quick to protect a Member who has the integrity to tell the truth, even when it is not popular. On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question I entirely appreciate that it is up to me and my colleagues to do all that we can to help in this extremely serious situation. I do not believe that there was any way in which the existing contract could have been rescued after the trouble into which it had got. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that we shall do all that we can to see whether anything can be recreated in the area.

Mr. Dewar: If the Secretary of State is now so quick to recognise the integrity of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), why did he not do so at the time of the Hillhead by-election? Does he agree that the validity of the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, and the judgments incorporated in them, was shown by the long faces on the Liberal and SDP Benches while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking?
Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members, too, are extremely worried about our future credibility in the oil-related industries? Is he aware that in our view it does not help to have a Secretary of State making comparisons between the Scottish work force and coolies recruited from the paddy fields of Korea and generally talking down the essential competence of working people in Scotland? Does he now regret those remarks and will he apologise to the people of Scotland for them?

Mr. Younger: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to read what I said. My point was that, as it is clearly possible for structures of this kind to be manufactured by people in places such as Korea, it is inconceivable that people with long experience on the lower Clyde cannot do the same job so well. I should be extremely surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not agree with that.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting health board chairmen to discuss waiting lists.

Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend has no present plans to discuss waiting lists with health board chairmen.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the single most significant yardstick of Health Service provision is

the length of the waiting list? Is he aware that the increasing length of waiting lists in particular areas and specialties is causing great pain and suffering to patients in Scotland? Does he agree that it should be a priority for him to discuss this regularly with health board chairmen?

Mr. MacKay: The chairmen are, of course, well aware of my wish to encourage them to seek ways of improving their efficiency, increasing patient throughput and reducing waiting lists. From 1979 to 1981 the Government had some success in reducing the waiting lists which we inherited, but, when the Health Service dispute occurred, waiting lists increased again. Time after time I told the House that the dispute was damaging patient care and I invited Labour Members to condemn it, but they never did so. Yet now they are surprised that waiting lists have rocketed upwards. I trust, however, that they will be delighted to hear that between March and September last year waiting lists declined by 8,000. We hope to continue that progress in recovery from the damage inflicted by the dispute.

Transport Costs

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to reduce transport costs in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend has made major increases in subsidy for shipping services and has maintained support for the Highland and Island aerodromes and for certain essential air services. We intend to continue those policies.

Mr. Wallace: The islanders do not begrudge the subsidy provided so far, but does the Minister recall that the Select Committee found an overwhelming desire on the part of the islanders for the introduction of road equivalent tariff? What is the timetable of the Scottish Office to give substance to the commitment made by the Secretary of State in his statement on 28 July 1981 that the Government would stand by their manifesto pledge to move towards road equivalent tariff?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the level of subsidy over the last four years he will see that we have been fulfilling the commitment that was made in the manifesto in 1979. However, we have been giving further consideration to the system of subsidy, taking into account, among other things, the recent Monopoly Commission report on CaLMac. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement on shipping subsidy levels for 1984–85 soon and to announce his conclusions on the system at the same time.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I acknowledge the substantial assistance that has already been given to shipping services in the west and north, but does the Minister recollect that there was a firm commitment to move towards a system of road equivalent tariff? Since this was given in 1979 and we are now five years on, is it not time that the Government took the next step, closed the gap and introduced RET without further delay?

Mr. Ancram: I should perhaps remind the right hon. Gentleman of the figures. When we came into office in 1979 the subsidy figure for that year was £4·2 million. The equivalent figure for 1983–84 is £12·3 million. That is not only a very large cash increase but a large increase in real


terms. I do not see how he can possibly say that that is not a fulfilment of the commitment we made in the 1979 manifesto.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Points of order take up Question Time, so I will take them after Members' questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Motor Cars (Rear Lights)

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have taken place concerning motorists using bright rear lights in conditions of good visibility.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): No statistics are available.

Sir Hector Monro: While I do not want to see unnecessary prosecutions of motorists, will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that the police issue severe warnings to motorists who disobey the regulations and use bright lights, causing great inconvenience and even danger to other road users?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is little understood that the use of rear fog lamps in conditions where visibility is not adversely affected is an offence. I hope that that will be more widely understood. If it continues to be a problem, doubtless the police will report that to procurators fiscal in Scotland and after that the step of either issuing a warning or prosecuting will be taken.

Crown Office Building, Edinburgh

Mr. Maxton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many staff his Department employs in the Crown Office building, Edinburgh, formerly the Royal high school.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The total number of persons employed in the Crown Office building, Edinburgh is 93, excluding cleaning and security staff.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Solicitor-General consider taking all those staff out of that building, employing them somewhere else and persuading the Secretary of State to use the building for its proper purpose, which, of course, is the establishment of a Scottish Assembly?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Now that I read that the hon. Gentleman increasingly understands that he is a somewhat dumb pawn in the nationalist game over a Scottish Assembly, I am surprised that he uses his not inconsiderable energies in putting down questions of this sort. If he wants to ask me more detailed questions about how the staff of the Crown Office in Scotland—which is a unique institution in the United Kingdom—operates I shall be happy to give him a serious answer.

Mr. Wilson: I had always thought that one of the duties of the Solicitor-General was to bring about law reform in Scotland. Given the considerable backlog and delays in relation to law reform, particularly with regard to the law

of diligence and such matters, does he not agree that it would be beneficial for the improvement of the Scottish legal system if we had a Scottish legislature, so that we would be able to devote to Scottish legal business more than the half hour in one day which the House of Commons is able to give to it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who has had a career in the law in Scotland, would understand that we have a unique system of criminal law. It would do no good at all to our commercial system of law if we were to go along a route that is wholly idiosyncratic. It is critically important that we march in step with developments in Europe and south of the border—

Mr. Wilson: Why?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Because it is in the commercial interest of Scotland, which I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree is a desirable objective. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, there is not a delay on the part of the Government over diligence, as he well appreciates. The Scottish Law Commission feels that this matter requires the most detailed consideration. It is still considering it as a matter of top priority. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the better the reform it can achieve in this difficult area of the law, the better it will be for Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not the number of staff that he is employing in the old high school building that is important, but the quality of the staff and the quality of the work they produce?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but it is generally recognised that the procurator fiscal system and the Crown Office in Scotland are admired widely, not just in the rest of the United Kingdom but elsewhere in the world, to the extent that it is being considered whether a similar scheme might be followed south of the border.

Trades Union Congress

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to consider matters of mutual concern and, in particular, the sequestration of trade union funds.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Scottish Trades Union Congress has not requested a meeting with me to discuss such matters.

Mr. Hamilton: As the Government seem determined to break the trade union movement by law, and as that will inevitably lead to increasing conflict between trade unions and the law courts, with the consequent possible sequestration of trade union funds, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance that no organisation in Scotland — bank or anyone else — will sequestrate trade union funds without the law?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is not for banks or financial institutions to sequestrate without a court order.

Mr. Hamilton: A Scottish order.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: What has been little understood, and might be better understood by those who are truly interested in the commercial development of Scottish financial institutions, is that some, if not all, of those financial institutions trying to operate in places other than in Scotland will, on occasions, be subject to the jurisdiction of more than one court. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's view on trade union matters, I would counsel caution—

Mr. Hamilton: You, too.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: —when he suggests that there are financial institutions in Scotland which should be subject only to Scottish jurisdiction. If they are to expand and be profitable, they will naturally have to operate in jurisdictions other than Scotland.

Scottish Law Commission

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he next intends to meet the members of the Scottish Law Commission.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Neither I nor my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate have any meetings arranged, but both formal and informal meetings are held from time to time as necessary.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Scottish Law Commission Bill—the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Bill—has been introduced with support from both sides of the House? Will he be prepared to give it his support?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I am most grateful, and the House should be grateful, to my hon. Friend for the steps that he has taken to introduce a Bill reforming the law relating to husband and wife. While the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) feels that we are not doing all that we might, it is significant that it should be my hon. Friend who has taken this step of introducing these changes following the publication of the Scottish Law Commission's report. I am pleased that Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), have supported the measure. I trust that the Bill will enjoy the support not just of its sponsors when it comes before the House on Friday, but all hon. Members.

Mr. Maclennan: Why are the Government allowing the matter to be handled by a private Member rather than, as in England and Wales, treating it as a Government issue? Is it a sign that the Scottish legislative process is so clogged up with other measures that it has to be left to a private Member to take action?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, not at all. It is that the Conservatives have a prominent Back Bencher who is prepared to read Scottish Law Commission reports and who realises that there is an opportunity for him to introduce a reform which the Commission has advocated. I hope that when the Bill is before the House on Friday it will enjoy the support of all hon. Members.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Caithness (Mr. Maclennan) was referring to a completely different set of provisions. We are awaiting the Government's decision on the Law Commission's recommendations on the financial settlements on divorce, about which the English are

already legislating, although the English Law Commission's report was introduced at about the same time as the Scottish Law Commission's report. I recognise that there are different issues, but we need decisions. When can we expect them?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a difficult matter. If I recollect accurately, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland was reported in the Scottish press as saying, "Oh! This is a hot potato." The Conservative party's general election manifesto said that the matter required reform. The report is different from the one prepared south of the border. The hon. Gentleman recognises, from his interest in these matters, as do other Scottish Members, that, although there may be great interest in the Scottish Law Commission's proposals, there are as many organisations in Scotland hostile to the scheme as there are those in favour of it.

Sexual Assault

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement about the Scottish Office social research study investigating sexual assault.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Scottish Office social research study investigating sexual assault relates primarily to police investigations and as such is properly a matter for my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The second report, which is expected to be published this year, examines the prosecution and court stages of such cases. I shall study that report, as I have the first report, with great care.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland add weight to any discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and point out that one of the main conclusions of that important first report concerned the inability of some detectives to interview women and children who were victims of sexual assault? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman add weight to the report's suggestion that a special unit should be set up, with specialists who are trained to deal with this nasty offence? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, even if a unit set up in Strathclyde was a pilot scheme, that would be a tremendous advantage?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is widely recognised that matters arising from the report must be examined. It has been proposed that discussions should be held with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to examine what action needs to be taken as a result of the report's important proposals.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland might justifiably have been expected to be asked a question during Scottish Questions about his crucial meeting tomorrow with Mr. Ronald Hancock, the managing director of Leyland Vehicles. In view of the Cabinet's belief that the world is coming out of recession, Scottish Members from the area plead with the Secretary of State to put the case for a tiding-over operation—such as the Jetstream operation—to Leyland Vehicles and his Cabinet colleagues—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is asking a question which he might have put earlier.

Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State, as you well know, has


often been the subject of complaint for making statements outside the House on very important matters. In the presence of both the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House, I ask the Secretary of State to give a commitment that he will come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about the outcome of his meeting with British Leyland.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's plea has been heard and noted.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter concerning Question Time that is of deep concern to me. I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland misled the House, perhaps inadvertently, when he referred to the Scott Lithgow work force's failure to respond positively to the management's survival plan. The work force responded in September, when there was agreement on both sides.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed a good run of questions about Scott Lithgow because I appreciate how important the matter is to hon. Members from Scotland and, indeed elsewhere. I apologise to hon. Members who had later questions on the Order Paper, which, as a result, were not reached.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, assistance and advice. Before questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland this afternoon, we had reached only question No. 10 to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The general dialogue of Question Time shows that some Conservative Members were called four or five times, although the Conservative party is a minority party—

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Eadie: In seeking your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, I am not being critical. I understand that if hon. Members have tabled a question they are entitled to be called. One Scottish constituency is as good as another. During Scottish Question Time we are entitled to voice our concern about matters affecting our constituencies and our constituents. The Conservatives are the minority party in Scotland, but they are the Government, and the Government are entitled to defend their record. However, they are not entitled to defend their record in Scotland at the expense of other members of this honourable House. [Interruption.] As there is a serious crisis in Scotland in the energy industry, the shipbuilding industry and the motor car industry, we as Members of Parliament are entitled to an opportunity at Question Time to ask questions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to request the House to be silent so that I could hear what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was saying. Has he finished?

Mr. Eadie: I was about to finish. I was seeking your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker. I do not criticise you

personally. At present in Scotland there is a crisis in shipbuilding, the coal mining industry, the energy industry, the motor car industry and other industries. We are entitled, at Scottish Question Time, to have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Scotland. We should not be disadvantaged by Conservative Members being able to ask four or five questions of the Secretary of State. That is manifestly unfair—

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say, particularly to Scottish Members, that I appreciate that we did not get far with questions today, but I have to make a judgment every day about the important issues. I judged today that Scott Lithgow was of great importance. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) did not have a question on the Order Paper. I try to call hon. Members who have questions later on the Order Paper on earlier questions, and I did so today. I am sorry if my judgment today meant that we did not get far. I hope that Scottish Members are satisfied that this important matter had a good airing.

Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that Scottish Members are greatly frustrated not only because the Government are in a minority in Scotland but because the Secretary of State for Scotland constitutionally exercises the powers of seven to nine Cabinet Ministers for England? This is bound to cause trouble if we have only one Question Time every four weeks. Is it not time that you, Mr. Speaker, invited the Procedure Committee to look at the order of questions, so that when there is a crisis and a national emergency, as there is in Scotland at present, we have the opportunity to air those matters in the House and to endeavour to get a satisfactory response from the Secretary of State and his colleagues which will in some small way satisfy our constituents, who feel that the ground is caving in under them as unemployment increases and closures take place at an ever-increasing rate?

Mr. Speaker: The timing of questions is not a matter for me. However, the Leader of the House is present, and he will have heard what has been said.

Mr. McQuarrie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect the comments made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), but do you not accept that, equally, some Conservative Members had no opportunity to speak to matters affecting their constituencies? I accept that you endeavoured to call hon. Members, but not only did some Opposition Members have no opportunity to speak but some Conservative Members did not have the opportunity to make pertinent points concerning not only their constituences but the economy of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not complaining about the number of times he was called.

Kincora Children's Home

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the further action I propose to take over the Kincora affair, about which I previously reported to the House on 18 February 1982.
In 1981, five people who had held positions of responsibility in homes and hostels for children and young people in Northern Ireland were sentenced to imprisonment for sexual offences against those in their care. Following these convictions the police continued their investigations into a number of outstanding matters, and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary asked Sir George Terry, then chief constable of Sussex, to investigate allegations about the way in which the police had conducted their inquiries and to have a general oversight of the continuing investigations.
The RUC has completed its investigations. Sir George Terry's inquiry has also been completed. He has concluded that the RUC was justified in not mounting a full investigation before it did, in 1980; that there had been no concealment of evidence of a homosexual ring involving residents of the homes or others, nor evidence of homosexual practices by officials or police officers; but that there were shortcomings as regards the administration of the child welfare services. The Director of Public Prosecutions has considered all the papers and concluded that no ground existed which would justify any further prosecutions connected with the affair.
The convictions in 1981, together with others in 1982 and the events surrounding these cases, have been the subject in Northern Ireland of allegations of misconduct and of widespread disquiet. No other inquiry could be pursued without the risk that it would render further prosecutions impossible. Sir George Terry's inquiry has been thorough and his conclusions, as they bear on some of the wider allegations, are clear.
Although the extensive investigations which have been conducted have produced no evidence that would justify my asking the House to approve an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, the House will share my wish to be satisfied that every possible step has been taken to ensure that there is no repetition of these unhappy events. I propose accordingly to establish a public inquiry under the powers contained in article 54 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. His honour Judge Hughes, a retired circuit judge, has agreed to chair this inquiry. The names of the other members of the committee of inquiry will be announced as soon as possible.
I shall circulate the full terms of reference in the Official Report. They will enable the inquiry to examine the administration of children's homes and young persons' hostels whose residents were subjected to homosexual offences which led to convictions or where homosexual misconduct led to disciplinary action against members of the staff; the extent to which those responsible for residential care could have prevented the commission of such acts or detected their occurrence earlier; the implications for present procedures and practices within the system of residential care; and to make recommendations with a view to promoting the welfare of such children and young persons and preventing any future malpractices.
The committee of inquiry will be able to consider what more should be done. It will be for the committee to determine its mode of operations and from whom it will seek evidence. It will be able to sit in public if it wishes. Those who give evidence in good faith will, as a matter of law, have protection in proceedings for defamation. Although the inquiries by the RUC and Sir George Terry, taken with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, mean that it is exceedingly unlikely that fresh evidence justifying prosecution will emerge, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, has undertaken to give immunity from prosecution for evidence which would incriminate a witness in respect of offences involving homosexual relations between males, and related offences such as counselling, procuring or soliciting. The inquiry will have power to subpoena evidence in Northern Ireland and its report will be published.
I believe that this inquiry will enable such lessons as there are to be learned and acted upon, and will provide the best basis for confidence in future in the provision made in homes and hostels for children and young persons.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which hardly comes as a surprise. Will he speculate on how the timing seems to have been generally known to the media before it was known to the House?
The House will have confidence in Judge Hughes, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain the reasoning that led him to exclude an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which at first sight seemed to be the most obvious procedure? Will he confirm that the terms of reference are sufficient to ensure a full investigation into all aspects of the matter, which no previous investigation has achieved—the administration of this home and of young people's hostels in Northern Ireland generally, the methods of ensuring that the authorities are fully informed of the welfare of young people under their care, the role of the police in this matter, what became of the various complaints made over the years before the matter came to light, and the political implications? Will this committee have a duty and power to investigate previous inquiries, whether they were misled and how?
The House notes that the inquiry will have power to compel the attendance of witnesses who in appropriate cases will be accorded immunity from prosecutions in respect of offences disclosed in their evidence. Perhaps more important, will they also be accorded physical protection if they request it?
As this is at least the fourth investigation into the events at Kincora, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is his last opportunity to allay public disquiet, if it can properly be allayed, and that this time he had better get it right?

Mr. Prior: I felt that a 1921 Act inquiry was not justified because none of the allegations that have been made and investigated by the Terry report and the police has suggested that this matter would justify an inquiry under that Act. When we discussed this two years ago I made it clear that the House would need to be absolutely certain that a 1921 Act type of tribunal was essential before it would permit such an inquiry under those terms. For example, the Salmon report felt that a 1921 inquiry should be used only in very exceptional circumstances.
In this case I did not believe that it was justified, particularly as I believed that the manner of the inquiry and the terms of reference — with the committee sitting under an experienced judge such as we have been able to obtain—would present an opportunity for all the matters relevant to what has happened in these boys' homes over the years and the innuendo surrounding this whole affair to be properly examined.
If it is necessary for physical protection to be given by the police, it will, of course, be given. I give the House that assurance.
I was not aware that there had been any breach of the etiquette surrounding the notice that I would make a statement to the House, but if there was, I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that we in Northern Ireland are used to the fact that the press knows what is happening in advance? It is therefore no surprise that the press was able to speculate on what would happen on this occasion.
Despite his judgment about a 1921 Act inquiry, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many people will doubt whether the allegations of misconduct and widespread disquiet, which have circulated in Northern Ireland for some time, will be dispelled by the nature of the inquiry that he has announced? I do not criticise the chairman of the inquiry who has been asked to investigate this matter, but I query whether the terms of reference are too narrow to deal with the problem. My hon Friends and I would prefer a much wider inquiry to deal with the issues.
Does the Secretary of State disagree with those hon. Members who take issue with that part of the report which says that, bearing in mind the pressures on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it was not surprising that it did not investigate the matter before 1980? Like many of my friends in Northern Ireland, I think that because of the pressures of security duties upon the RUC, reinforcement should have been sent to help it instead of distracting it from other important investigations. We believe that the care of young people is a vital responsibility for the state. When it takes them under its care, it is our responsibility to look after them.
I welcome the forward-looking aspects of the inquiry. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that the sooner guidelines are given and the sooner confidence is restored, the sooner those in this sensitive and responsible area will be helped to do an excellent job. Many workers in the field have felt under a cloud because of the allegations. Will those journalists who have used the freedom of the press to impute different motives or to allege certain acts be brought before the inquiry so that they may be asked to substantiate their allegations, which have caused continual unrest in the Province?

Mr. Prior: We have chosen not to follow the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 because the Salmon report made it clear that tribunals of inquiry under the 1921 Act should be set up only sparingly and in very special circumstances on matters of urgent public importance. Successive Governments have accepted that recommendation. I am confident that the inquiry that I have announced is wholly appropriate for its task.
I can answer the direct question by the hon. Gentleman. The power of subpoena is available to the inquiry. It could, if appropriate, call journalists to give evidence.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important, among other matters, for the conduct of children's homes to be seen to be above reproach. Immediately after the events came to light, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Sheridan inquiry was set up. All the boys' homes have been looked at carefully and fresh guidelines have been laid down, which I believe will all be implemented by February at the latest. A great deal of work has been done in the past two years. We have dealt with most of that side of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman said that Sir George Terry understood why the police did not investigate the matter before 1980. I believe that it would be within the inquiry's terms of reference to examine why no inquiry was instigated before 1980. This goes to the heart of much of the concern expressed in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: All constitutional and political parties in Northern Ireland have independently and unitedly made approaches to the Secretary of State for a complete, full and in-depth inquiry into this affair. Several approaches have been made by the party leaders to the Secretary of State asking for a full, public, judicial inquiry. Has it not been made abundantly clear that nothing less than the fullest possible judicial inquiry will satisfy the demands of justice and allay the fears of the general public in Northern Ireland? Opinion in Northern Ireland is that the Government have been dragging their feet. Will the inquiry be permitted to plumb the depths of the matter and consider the numerous other homes which have been under suspicion for several years, or will it be nothing more than a gloss on the surface of the affair?

Mr. Prior: The Assembly had two debates on the subject. I have seen the party leaders and at all times they have asked for a judicial inquiry to be held in public. That is the gist of what they have required. I believe that I have satisfied their demands without setting up a 1921 Act type of inquiry, which I do not believe to be appropriate in this case.
It will be up to the inquiry and the eminent judge who will preside over it to examine anything which is relevant to the particular boy's home, or to the other five boys' homes, and the circumstances which led up to the problems. Immunity will be given to witnesses who come forward and people will be protected from the law of defamation, provided that their motives are proper. I believe that it will be possible for the inquiry to be conducted along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not the 1921 Act type of inquiry often been criticised for its unfairness to individuals brought before it? The Secretary of State has announced improvements in the supervision of homes. May we take it that appropriate lessons are being learnt on this side of the water as well as in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: We have used experience on this side of the water to help us with the problems that we encountered in Northern Ireland. Of course there has been close liaison between the social services Department in Northern


Ireland and the DHSS in England. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about use of the 1921 Act type of inquiry which I have much in mind and which I thought that the House would have in mind if I brought a resolution to that effect before the House. The problem for the House and for the Government is that there is little between a 1921 Act type of inquiry which involves many disadvantages for many innocent people, and the type of inquiry that I am suggesting. There is no easy middle course for such an inquiry. That is why I have tried as best I can to provide wide terms of reference within the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
I have no wish to drag my feet or to cover up the affair in any way. It has been much on my mind in the last two years. I should like an inquiry to bury the issue once and for all by finding out the facts, if there are facts to be found. If there are no facts, I hope that people will have the grace to say that rumour-mongering has been engaged in and that that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It is now nearly two years since the Secretary of State expressed his intention of appointing a committee with a High Court judge as chairman to sit in public. Why has it taken such an inordinate time for an inquiry to be set up? Why are we not now to have a public inquiry, but essentially a private inquiry with the power to sit in public if its members wish? Why is police conduct in the Kincora affair outside the proposed inquiry's terms of reference, as was made clear in today's statement, when the only inquiry into police conduct was by a police officer?

Mr. Prior: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point, it was carried out by a chief constable from another force. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about why it has taken so long between my original announcement in February 1981 and today is that the report by Sir George Terry, which was commissioned by the Chief Constable of the RUC, did not come out until last autumn—I think it was the end of October. Until that report was considered by the Chief Constable and then referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to see whether any prosecutions were to be brought under it, there was no way in which I could set up an inquiry. Had I tried to set up an inquiry before the report was available, anyone who gave evidence to that inquiry would have had to be given immunity, that might have prevented people who could have been found to have committed offences from being charged with those offences. So that was the reason for the delay. We have a judicial inquiry. It is expected to meet in public. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. The judge in question is not a High Court judge, but he is a judge of great experience. So I think that the inquiry qualifies as a judicial inquiry.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Although I have considerable sympathy for my right hon. Friend and his statement, I should like to ask one or two questions about the inquiry. My right hon. Friend said that it will meet in public, if it so wishes. He then went on to say that those who give evidence in good faith will, as a matter of law, have protection in proceedings for defamation. How does one define the phrase "in good faith"?
My right hon. Friend also said that it was exceedingly unlikely that fresh evidence justifying a prosecution will emerge. He also said that the Attorney-General has

undertaken to give immunity from prosecution for evidence that would incriminate a witness. I have to tell my right hon. Friend, in spite of my strong sympathy and support for the work that he does, that I am profoundly concerned about the terms of reference for the committee of inquiry, particularly as he said that it will be for the committee to determine its mode of operations and from whom it will seek evidence.

Mr. Prior: I do not think that I can decide from whom the committee will seek evidence. It must be a matter for the committee either to call people to give evidence or for people to come forward to give evidence. In answer to the other matters that my hon. Friend raised, witnesses who in good faith give evidence, believing it to be true, will be protected in defamation proceedings. That is a judicial expression of witnesses acting in good faith which I think will be understood, and is understood, by the judge and by lawyers who may attend with any witness who comes forward.
Perhaps I might clear up the matter of immunity by saying that my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that no evidence given by a witness to the inquiry, nor any document that he is required to produce, will he used against him in any subsequent criminal proceedings for an offence involving homosexual relations between males, or attempting, aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring. soliciting or inciting, or conspiracy to commit any offence of that kind, or withholding information about any such offence.
That is the precise ruling that the Attorney-General gave on the matter. Should it become apparent that a witness has evidence which is of material interest to the inquiry but which cannot be given without risk that it could lead to prosecution, my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to consider whether immunity should be extended to cover it. I think we have gone as far as we can to ensure that this inquiry will be entitled to get all the facts of the situation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the history of this affair and its extremely protracted unravelling, does not the Secretary of State think that it might have been wiser to regard this as one of those exceptional cases in which it would be appropriate to proceed under the 1921 Act? Secondly, in view of the desirability of reaching final conclusions and putting the matter beyond further anxiety, can he say when he expects the Hughes inquiry to complete its business?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give any information about the time that it will take. I want it to get on straight away. I shall, of course, announce the names of the other two members of the inquiry team as soon as possible after consulting the judge. I hope that it will be a reasonably short period, but it will depend on the number of people who come forward to give evidence. This time, it must be a complete inquiry. As for whether I am right in my judgment about the 1921 Act type of inquiry, it is my judgment that the House would have been reluctant to grant those powers, and I did not wish to put the House in the position of having to consider the matter when I myself did not believe, as the Terry report has already dealt with a large number of these allegations, that it would have been right in this case. I have seen and heard nothing since, despite what a few hon. Members have said, to make me change my mind.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Sir George Terry, who until recently was the highly respected chief constable of Sussex, for compiling what appears to have been a thorough and highly sensitive report? However, may I invite my right hon. Friend to go somewhat wider, as the matter has implications elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and agree that the unhappy circumstances surrounding this case and the setting up of the Hughes inquiry show that there are still circumstances in which many young people are still under the influence of adults who may have homosexual tendencies? When we receive demands from many groups, such as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, for a reduction in the age of consent among adults for homosexual acts, we should bear unhappy circumstances such as these in mind.

Mr. Prior: That goes a good deal wider than the inquiry, but I agree very much with what my hon. Friend says. I should like to pay tribute to Sir George Terry for the thoroughness of his inquiry. It was conducted on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, so only the conclusions have been made public. It was a very thorough inquiry, conducted by two superintendents under Sir George Terry, and took a good deal of time to compile.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My right hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary kindly consented to investigate any cases of child abuse that I bring to his knowledge. However, perhaps the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not know that, sadly, this morning I handed a further dossier to the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman says must be related to the statement.

Mr. Dickens: It is indeed, Sir. That dossier contained allegations of a child offence in a children's home. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the lessons and experience learnt from the Kincora episode will be communicated to the Home Office and to the chief constable of the establishment concerned so that we may move with much more speed in such cases?

Mr. Prior: The answer to that is yes, but I must point out that the underlying problems of the Kincora affair go a good deal wider and deeper than just the problems of homosexual affairs in one home. Although the prevention of that must be the first aim of any Secretary of State or his Ministers, my other aim is to bring to an end the chapter of rumour, innuendo and charge levelled against people in Northern Ireland without, as far as I can find out, any basis of fact. It is a related but much wider problem that we are dealing with, as well as the one my hon. Friend mentions.
Following:

(i) the investigations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary into possible homosexual offences related to children's homes and young persons' hostels in Northern Ireland
(ii) the investigation by the former Chief Constable of Sussex, Sir George Terry CBE, QPM, DL, and the publication of his conclusions and recommendations; and
(iii) the report of the team of child-care experts made available by the Secretary of State for Social Services to consider the ways in which the Department of Health and Social Services (NI) carries out its role in relation to the supervision and management of homes and hostels for children and young persons,

the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by Article 54 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Personal Social Services (NI) Order 1972, hereby appoints the following persons (names of chairman and members) to:

(a) inquire into the administration of children's homes and young persons' hostels whose residents were subjected to homosexual offences which led to convictions by the Courts or where homosexual misconduct led to disciplinary action against members of the staff, and into the extent to which those responsible for the provision of residential care for children and young persons could have prevented the commission of such acts or detected their occurrence at an earlier stage;
(b) consider the implications for present procedures and practices within the system of residential care, including in particular the adequacy and effectiveness of arrangements for the supervision and protection of children and young persons in residential care; and
(c) make recommendations with a view to promoting the welfare of such children and young persons and preventing any future malpractice;

and to report thereon to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Dennis Skinner.
Mr. Peter Bottomley.
Mr. Humfrey Malins.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Medicines (Cyanogenetic Substances) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) (Amendment) Order 1983 (S. I., 1983, No. 1818) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Abolition of Standing Charges

Mr. John Cartwright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and telephones.
I make no apology for returning to an issue that has occupied the House on a number of occasions in the recent past. Many hon. Members will know from letters and from their surgeries that this issue continues to worry many of our constituents. That is hardly surprising because standing charges are now a major source of income for the nationalised industries concerned. For gas and electricity they produce over £500 million a year, and for British Telecom the sum is over £800 million a year.
Standing charges have shot up rapidly recently. For example, in 1977 the standing charge for gas was only £1·50 a quarter. By 1982 it had reached £9·20, a sixfold rise in five years. A great many consumers are now paying substantial sums every quarter in standing charges. For gas, the figure is now £9·90, for electricity it is £7·45 and for telephones it is £16·27 a quarter.
These are charges over which most consumers have no control and in the vast majority of cases they are not related to the level of consumption. They are annoying for all consumers, but for those on small fixed incomes they are a nightmare. If we add to the basic standing charges that I have mentioned the standing charges for water and sewerage services, we find that a single pensioner is now paying about £39 a quarter, or over £156 a year, in standing charges. That represents one month's pension every year for a single pensioner going out in standing charges for which there is no tangible benefit; the costs of the services must be met over and above them.
The Government have reacted to the problem by seeking to limit standing charges for gas and electricity to 50 per cent. of the bill, and British Telecom has introduced a rebate for those who make a very small number of calls. I do not dispute that this approach has helped some small consumers, but they must be very small indeed. For example, anyone who uses more than 10 units of electricity a week pays the full electricity standing charge, and anyone who makes more than eight 3p telephone calls a week ends up paying the full standing charge to British Telecom. The rebate scheme has had some unfortunate side effects. Pensioners groups are already worried lest some pensioners try to cut down on consumption still further to evade the standing charge and, in so doing, over-economise on essential items such as heating.
We approach the problem against the background of substantial profits being made by the industries concerned. For example, in the last financial year the profits of the gas industry before tax and interest were over £500 million, and for electricity they were over £800 million. For British Telecom, after tax and interest, profits were £365 million. The Government have been requiring the gas and electricity industries to raise their charges over and beyond what is needed on a commercial basis and have then been taxing away an element of that profit. In that situation, standing charges are an insidious form of flat rate taxation which bears hardest on those who are least able to pay.
The original aim of the charges was to cover the basic costs of installation, metering, servicing and similar items, but the costs these days are no longer directly related to individual cases; they are purely flat rate charges. An

anonymous spokesman for the Electricity Council was reported in the Daily Mirror in October 1982 as having said:
There is really no fair way of dividing it all up.
If there is no fair way of doing it, we should stop doing it. It is time that we reconsidered our whole approach and moved towards the abolition of standing charges, although, clearly, that could not be done at one fell swoop and would not be the final answer to the problem.
If we were to replace standing charges by increased charges for units of gas, electricity and telephones, some consumers would gain and some would lose. About 60 per cent. of all consumers would pay less and 70 per cent. of all pensioners would pay less, but some large users would pay more. For example, families in all-electric homes would be worse off. However, we must face the fact that a great many people are already unable to afford a decent level of heating in their homes. The abolition of standing charges would remove a great deal of the present confusion and would concentrate attention on that problem.
The relief of poverty is a matter for the social security system. We should not make one group of poor consumers subsidise another, which we are doing by means of the standing charges. It is clear that the charges cannot be removed at a stroke; they must be phased out over a period. We should achieve that objective as part of a comprehensive attack on the whole problem of fuel poverty, and to do that will require sustained pressure. I urge the House to support my Bill as a contribution to that pressure and, even more important, as a gesture of sympathy and support for millions of pensioners on whom standing charges bear so heavily.

Mr. John Wells: It is in sorrow rather than anger that I rise to oppose the Bill. I found the delivery, matter and sense of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) all extremely attractive and 1 congratulate him on the start that he has made.

Mr. Cartwright: The Whips have got at the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wells: Certainly not; I have had to get at the Whips.
An unfortunate situation exists, not on the Floor of the House but in the Press Gallery. Day by day, members of the press pick up well-intentioned ten-minute Bills and blow them up out of all proportion. Many simple, honest, worthy and humble people completely misunderstand what is happening. The hon. Member for Woolwich knows, as we all know — even the much maligned Whips know—that this Bill has no chance of becoming law. However, the people to whom the press speak do not understand our procedure and are misled.
The hon. Member for Woolwich and I are personal friends, so I can oppose his Bill with no personal malice and with the greatest of friendship and good will. However, an even more disgraceful Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will come up next week, and over that measure every pensioner in Scotland will be shedding tears. I oppose the broad principle of hon. Members, via the press, misleading simple people. [Interruption.] That is happening, and therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the issue with which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) is now dealing is more a matter for a procedure debate. He must concentrate on his opposition to this particular Bill.

Mr. Wells: There are two reasons for tabling ten-minute Bills knowing that they will not become law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There are two reasons why this Bill might have been put down. One is for the personal aggrandisement and publicity of the hon. Member concerned, and I acquit the hon. Member for Woolwich of that. The other is to put down a marker for the Government to take action. I hope that the Government will take action in furthering their 50 per cent. rule, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, although, as he said, his Bill would not cover water and sewerage.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. From time to time I have sat on a Committee that has been chaired by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) and I seem to remember being pulled up for straying from the subject under debate. On this occasion, the hon. Member may be straying from the subject and may suffer from it when next he chairs a Committee.

Mr. Speaker: It is I who am suffering from it at the moment. I hope that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) has concluded what he has to say about the Bill. I understand his general proposition, but it is not a matter for debate today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. For this matter to be looked at completely in the round, should we not change the title of this Bill so that those in the Gallery and others can be fully

informed? In the last Parliament the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who is now moving a Bill for the abolition of standing charges, was one of a group of Social Democrats that refused to join the Labour party in the Lobby to introduce a Bill to get rid of standing charges. The only hon. Member that we managed to get in the Lobby wandered in and out and found himself in the other Lobby as well. We do not know what was wrong with him. I suggest that the SDP changes the title of this Bill to the Abolition of Standing Charges (Change of Policy) Bill.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), rather than the hon. Member for Maidstone, should be opposing the Bill. I think that enough has been said. We have a long day in front of us.

Mr. Wells: I wish briefly to deal with the water and sewage problem. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) did not include that in his Bill. This is one aspect that has slipped past the Government's 50 per cent. rule. In my area, the Southern Water Authority has not complied with this guideline. Therefore, I oppose the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. Kenneth Warren and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

ABOLITION OF STANDING CHARGES

Mr. John Cartwright accordingly presented a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and telephones: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 April and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

Orders of the Day — Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 9

REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON REAPPLICATION TO PURCHASE

'Subsection (10) of section 2 of the 1980 Act (restriction on further application to purchase) is hereby repealed.' —[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 1.

Mr. Ancram: New Clause 9 would repeal subsection (10) of section 2 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which provides that a tenant who has received an offer to sell, but subsequently withdraws his application, shall not be entitled to make a fresh application for a further period of 12 months. Amendment 1 is a consquential amendment, which would delete subsection (3) from clause 1.
In Committee we had a very useful discussion of the transitional provisions in clause 1. Subsection (3) in particular sought to provide that where a tenant had received, but not accepted, an offer to sell on the date the Bill takes effect, he should be entitled to withdraw his application and submit a fresh one, to take account of the higher levels of discount available, without having to wait the normal period of 12 months which would be required under section 2(10) of the 1980 Act.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out, however, that this appeared to place at a disadvantage tenants who might have withdrawn their applications before the Bill took effect, possibly in anticipation of its provisions. These tenants would still be caught by section 2(10) and would have to wait the full 12 months before they could submit a new application.
In replying to these points, I said that I did not favour amending the Bill specifically to allow tenants who withdraw their applications during the passage of the measure to reapply immediately it takes effect, without waiting for the normal 12 months, because this would run the danger of introducing legislation which was retrospective. However, I said that I would be prepared to consider the case for removing the 12-month ban on reapplications entirely. The ban was introduced into the 1980 Act to deter frivolous applications in the early days of the right to buy, when tenants might have been encouraged to make probing applications to try to find out what the selling prices of their houses would be, even though they had no serious intention of purchasing. There is no corresponding time bar on reapplications under the English legislation, and this does not appear to have caused any problems in England and Wales. This is why

we are proposing that section 2(10) of the 1980 Act should be repealed in its entirety and I trust that the new clause will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I took it from the debates that we had in Committee that this suggestion would find favour with both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) makes a face. I suppose that every body is entitled to change his mind. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was still on the Committee when we discussed this matter, but my recollection is that there was general support for this suggestion.
If section 2(10) is repealed there is nothing to stop a tenant who has a current offer to sell, which he has not yet accepted, at the time the Bill takes effect from withdrawing his application and submitting a fresh one immediately, and subsection (3) of clause 1 therefore becomes unnecessary. As a consequence, amendment 1 proposes that this subsection of clause 1 should be omitted.
I hope that the new clause and the amendment find favour with the House.

Mr. Jim Craigen: As the Minister said, this matter was touched on in Committee, although he perhaps discerns an enthusiasm from the Opposition that was not there. I note his proposals, and ask him one thing—will this put additional administrative burdens on housing authorities?

Mr. Barry Henderson: It is a happy coincidence that the Government's new clause is the first one that comes before us in our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. John Home Robertson: They always do.

Mr. Henderson: I mean this particular new clause.
This illustrates the courtesy and consideration that my hon. Friend the Minister gave the members of the Committee during our sittings when he met the points that we raised. This point arose during the discussion of an Opposition amendment, and made me realise the possibility of a problem in a particular constituency case, to which I drew my hon. Friend's attention. His response in bringing forward this new clause fulfills the obligation that he gave the Committee. What is even better is that this is an imaginative way of dealing with a minor problem, and the result has been a substantial improvement of the Bill. The English experience led to anxieties that allowed that clause to be in the Bill originally, but we have no reason to fear now. I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hugh Brown: There was general agreement in Committee that there was an injustice. Although we were in favour of the principle of changing the discount from 50 to 60 per cent., there was an injustice between current and future applications, so there is merit in what the Minister is proposing and I am not in disagreement with him. However, there is one point that I should like the Minister to clarify. As he does not yet have the authority of the Act, how will he or the housing authorities advise current applicants on applications that could be withdrawn to take advantage of the increased discount in the future?

Mr. Dick Douglas: In Committee I mentioned the sale by the Property Services Agency of Ministry of Defence houses in Crombie. The Minister undertook to make some inquiries.

Mr. Ancram: Where?

Mr. Douglas: Crombie — perhaps the Minister is having difficulty with my good west of Scotland accent. I understand that the Ministry of Defence, through the PSA, is suggesting to the people who are being moved from some parts of Crombie that they are being moved because of the possible expansion of the depot there and the dangers that that might involve. The Ministry is putting tenants in other property. I have received representations from those tenants who are anxious to know what their status during the passage of this Bill is likely to be. Will the Minister undertake to take the issue up with the Ministry of Defence so that it can be clarified? Tenants are anxious to know what benefits will flow to them as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: I undertake to take up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) with my colleague in the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that that will be done.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked whether new clause 9 will involve increased administration. As far as I am aware, it will not. Perhaps I should have said earlier that new clause 9 owes much to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) who produced a constituency case in Committee. That case highlighted the difficulties which could arise. I am grateful to him for doing that. New clause 9 is an improvement.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked about current applicants. If new clause 9 is passed there will be nothing to prevent tenants who have received an offer to sell when the Bill takes effect from withdrawing their application and submitting a fresh one so that they might benefit from the higher rate of discount. However, that provision is restricted to tenants who have received an offer to sell but have not accepted it. It is clear that once an offer has been accepted the contractual arrangement involved creates different circumstances. People who consider whether to withdraw an application and to submit a fresh one should bear in mind whether the valuation of their property might have changed in the time between their original application and the new one. They will have to take that into account when deciding whether that would be the right way in which to proceed.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill, I might not have detected enthusiasm—I used the word "favour". As he is always a conscientious representative of his party on the Front Bench I always take it that if he does not oppose something in his normal robust way, his silence can be construed as acceptance of what is proposed. That is why, with some confidence, I suggested that new clause 9 would be regarded as an improvement by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that it will find favour.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO AUTHORISE REFUSAL TO SELL CERTAIN DWELLING-HOUSES REQUIRED for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

'(1) After section 3A of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

3B. — (1) Where an application to purchase a dwelling-house is served on an islands council as landlord and—

(a) the dwelling-house is—

(i) held by the council for the purposes of its functions as education authority; and
(ii) required for the accommodation of a person who is or will be employed by the council for those purposes;

(b) the council is not likely to be able reasonably to provide other suitable accommodation for the person mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) above; and
(c) the tenant would, apart from this section, have a right under section 1 of this Act to purchase the dwelling-house,
the landlord may, within one month of service of the application to purchase or of the commencement of this section, whichever is the later, instead of serving an offer to sell on the tenant, make an application to the Secretary of State for authority to serve a notice of refusal on the tenant.

(2) An application to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall contain sufficient information to enable him to ascertain whether the conditions mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of that subsection are fulfilled in relation to the dwelling-house.

(3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above are fulfilled in relation to the dwelling-house referred to in an application to him under that subsection, he shall authorise the landlord to serve on the tenant a notice of refusal, which shall be served as soon as practicable after the said authority is given and in any event within one month thereafter.

(4) A notice of refusal served under subsection (3) above shall specify/

(a) the information referred to in subsection (2) above; and
(b) that service of the notice has been authorised by the Secretary of State.

(5) Where the Secretary of State refuses an application made to him under subsection (1) above, the landlord shall serve on the tenant an offer to sell under section 2(2) of this Act—

(a) within the period mentioned in the said section 2(2); or
(b) where that period has expired or the unexpired portion of it is less than one month, within one month of the Secretary of State's refusal.".

(2) In subsection (2) of section 2 of the 1980 Act, for the words "or 3A" there shall be substituted the words ", 3A or 3B". ',—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
Government new clause 12—Recovery of possession of dwelling-houses required for educational purposes
New clause 7—Sale of houses by island councils
'Where a person makes an application under section 2 of the 1980 Act to an Islands Council to purchase a dwellinghouse which is vested in that council in its capacity as educational authority, the council shall be entitled to refuse that application if it is reasonably of the opinion that the house will be required either immediately or at some future time for the accommodation of a person who is or is to be employed by the council in connection with its function as education authority.'.

Mr. Ancram: These new clauses deal with the problems faced by islands councils when they are required to sell teachers' houses in remote areas. I hope that they


meet the undertakings that I gave in Committee. I trust that they will be supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In Committee we discussed an amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that would have given islands councils discretion to refuse to sell houses that were required for educational purposes. Although I did not feel able to accept that amendment as it stood, I said that I would consider proposing an amendment enabling islands councils to refuse to sell some houses that were required for educational purposes, provided that they had my right hon. Friend's consent. That is the effect of new clause 10. The approach is similar to treatment, prescribed by the 1980 legislation, of houses that have been specially adapted for the needs of elderly people. That approach has proved a satisfactory means of guarding the interests of landlord and tenant when there are houses of a special category which it is important that councils should be able to retain if they are to be able to carry out their statutory duties.
The hon. Member for Maryhill also tabled an amendment intended to enable islands councils to apply to the sheriff court to recover possession of a teacher's house when the teacher's employment had ended. I said that I would consider it, but I also said that I had reservations about it, bearing in mind the fact that the tenancy was otherwise secure.
On careful reflection, I am prepared to accept the principle of the amendment which also has a precedent in the treatment of amenity housing for elderly people. If the islands councils do not have some means of recovering possession of such houses the amendment that would enable them to refuse to sell teachers' houses in certain circumstances would have little value as the teacher would be able to remain in the house as a secure tenant and, indeed, to hand it on for one succession. It would, therefore, be many years before the house became available and, in the meantime, the council would still find itself faced with the difficult problem of trying to find alternative accommodation for a new teacher. Those are important considerations.
New clause 12 provides, therefore, that the islands councils may apply to the sheriff court for recovery of possession of a teacher's house once his employment has ended but it contains several safeguards for the teacher, which I consider to be extremely important. In the first place, the islands council must make out the case for recovery to the court and it will need to satisfy the court that the house is held for educational purposes, required for the accommodation of another teacher and that the council cannot reasonably provide alternative accommodation for that teacher.

Mr. John Maxton: The Minister keeps referring to teachers. Although in most cases it is teachers who will be affected, the provision refers to educational purposes. Does that include janitors' houses? What would happen to janitors when they retire, as they would require local authority housing far more than teachers?

Mr. Ancram: The provision includes janitors—their houses are included in those which are required for educational purposes. The hon. Gentleman's understanding is probably the same as mine. I am referring to teachers because it was in respect of teachers that this matter arose.
Their case illustrates what we are trying to achieve more simply than would be the case if we attempted to use a generic term that covered all possibilities. The island council must make out the case for recovery to the court, and it will need to satisfy the court that the house is held for educational purposes, is required for the accommodation of another teacher and the council cannot reasonably provide alternative accommodation for that teacher.
Under section 15(2) of the 1980 Act the court may order recovery only if it is satisfied that the council has made suitable alternative accommodation available for the "teacher" so there is no question of the teacher being left without a home.
Given those fairly strict safeguards to protect the interests of the teacher, it is appropriate to provide some mechanism for the islands councils to recover possession of these houses, if they are genuinely required for the employment of another teacher and it is impossible for the councils to make alternative provision. I emphasise that, although a council may in certain circumstances apply to the court to recover possession of a house, teachers who live in such houses will otherwise continue to enjoy full security of tenure and will have all rights under the tenants' charter.
In Committee it was appreciated on both sides that a particular problem related to the islands councils, and I hope that the House will feel that, in putting forward these new clauses, I have fulfilled my commitment made at that time to try to find a solution, not only to help the councils and relive their problems but to go some way towards safeguarding the interests of the tenants of those houses who in other circumstances would have security of tenure. I believe that the balance is about right, and I hope that these new clauses will find favour with the House.

Mr. Craigen: As the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, these new clauses which were debated in Standing Committee were drafted by the Western Isles council. I believe that the Under-Secretary agrees that they struck a sympathetic chord across the parties. I am grateful for the way in which he has attempted to recognise the special factors applying to the islands and the fact that the island authorities are education and housing authorities, which places them in a unique position in relation to Scottish local government and the operation of this legislation.
The Educational Institute of Scotland has been in touch with me. It was on the horns of a dilemma as it represents teachers in posts and concerns itself with teachers who may be retiring or thinking of doing other things. I understand that the institute is broadly happy with the Government's proposals.
It was made clear in Committee that certainly the Western Isles council had operated in a fairly responsible fashion. Its main concern was to safeguard the position of the remoter islands where housing provision is a problem. There is anxiety about the bureaucracy that may be emanating from the Scottish Education Department, at New St. Andrew's House. It is important that the bureaucracy is not too heavy-handed. I do not know how much island-hopping the Under-Secretary manages to achieve in his role as the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland. I know that he went skiing this winter and returned with a broken leg, and I hope that he recovers soon. He will need to stand on his own feet because of the


housing measures that are coming from New St. Andrew's House. I trust that in this matter there will be a lighter touch at the tiller in New St. Andrew's House.
It is important that the islands should be able to safeguard their position as education authorities. They have made it clear already that the right of teachers to buy houses will not be injured and alternative accommodation will be made available. The islands which are both education and housing authorities would make the position more realistic. I thank the Under-Secretary for doing his best to meet these problems.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Subsection (1)(b) of new clause 10 inserts:
the council is not likely to be able reasonably to provide other suitable accommodation for the person mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) above".
The new clause makes provision for application to be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland for authority to refuse the application of the sitting tenant to purchase the house and for him to grant refusal.
We have talked about the islands, but we must bear in mind that there are rural areas on the mainland that are equally remote where houses are possessed by regional authorities for educational purposes. A headmaster who chooses to retire or who for some reason is removed from the house he occupies and who wants to purchase his house is unable to do so under the provisions of subsection (1)(a)(ii).

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman has this point wrong. A teacher is not entitled to purchase that house under existing legislation, and this legislation does not alter that position. People given accommodation for employment purposes are not entitled to purchase their house because of the provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.

Mr. McQuarrie: That may be so, but the purpose of tenants' rights is to give the individual the right to purchase the house that he occupies. There is no reason why a person occupying a regional authority house should not have the right to purchase that house.
What happens if the regional education authority refuses the right to buy to a person occupying a house on his retirement or when he leaves educational employment? What steps should be taken to approach the district council —the housing authority in that area—to enable that person to purchase a house? Such a person has given valuable service to the community as a teacher or head teacher in a rural area where there are a limited number of houses and it may not be possible for the region to provide another house. Can measures be enacted to ensure that such a person receives a house from the district authority?

Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the Government's acceptance of these new clauses. The Western Isles and the Orkney and Shetland islands councils have faced a difficult problem. No doubt, the Under-Secretary is aware that those councils have accepted the principle of the Government's legislation on the purchase of housing. In towns such as Stornoway, Kirkwall and Lerwick, where teachers have no trouble in purchasing their houses, this practice has been widely

carried out. The problem has been entirely in the remote islands. From my knowledge I can assure the House that there have been several cases when it was almost impossible to attract applications for teachers even when a house went with the position. If a house could not be offered this would be extremely damaging to education in the Western Isles and the Orkney and Shetland islands. I am grateful to the Government for their recognition of this anomaly, for accepting the new clauses as a way out of the problem and for the assistance of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and both sides of the House.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I welcome the new clause and understand what my hon. Friend is hoping to achieve, but I am sad that the principle has not been extended to include all tenants of all regional councils.
I am at something of a loss to understand the logic of the Minister's position in being prepared to let teachers have the right to buy, unless the islands' council can demonstrate that it requires the accommodation for other education purposes, in an area where public sector housing is presumably in short supply, whereas in Central region or other regions in Scotland—for example, in Stirling where public sector housing is more readily available—tenants are to have no such rights. I am slightly disturbed that constituents, like the former teacher living in a house declared surplus by Central region about whom I have written to the Minister, are unable to enjoy the right to buy and to obtain a discount simply because of the ideological opposition of the Central regional council to council house sales. I do not see what basis of equity or what justification can allow a situation to continue where regional councils are able to sell such properties declared surplus to district councils at very substantial discounts. There are recorded examples well in excess of 50 per cent. where sitting tenants are living in those houses, yet the tenants are not allowed to enjoy any such discounts.
I am sure the House will be grateful to me if I do not rehearse the arguments for the new clause to be further extended to cover all tenants of regional councils. Indeed, the arguments were put in Committee very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). In Committee on the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 the then Shadow Secretary of State put the arguments very forcibly and, as always, was supported by his colleagues. He argued that if a right to buy were to exist at all it should be available equally to all tenants. I believe that that position is as valid today as it was then.
I ask my hon. Friend to take that argument on board, as I believe he promised to do in Committee, and even at this late hour to offer some hope to those tenants of regional councils outwith the islands, because the House is dealing not with private tenants in this amendment but with those who are suffering considerable hardship for no good reason. He has the support of many of us, and he has gone some considerable way to meet the islands' councils. I wish he would go a little further and meet the arguments that were put during the Committee stage.

Mr. James Wallace: We are grateful to the Minister for the way he has approached the problem put to him by the islands' councils. I think it is in some contrast to the attitude the councils found in the Scottish Office when the principal legislation was going


through in 1980. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for sparing the time to meet both me and the vice-convenor of Orkney islands council. I think he would agree that the vice-convenor of that council put forward very well the case for an amendment of this nature.
The anomaly has already been demonstrated that the islands authorities, being more than education and housing authorities, do not find themselves in the same position as for example, the Highland region. I think the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) was slightly confused on that point. The problem has not really existed in the towns. Orkney islands council has received applications and sold houses to teachers in Stromness and Kirkwall. The problem could well arise in the outlying islands. In Orkney the island of Rousay has a two-teacher school and two houses belonging to the local authority, which it built in its capacity as an education authority. One was the subject of an application to purchase and, should the purchaser retire, as might well be the case, and intend to stay in the island, it would pose great problems if the council had to house an incoming teacher.
It must, therefore, seem somewhat churlish if we did not welcome the new clause wholeheartedly. However, two specific points prompted my right hon. and hon. Friends to table an amendment. First, we see an attitude emanating from the Scottish Office that the Scottish Office knows best. I submit that, even though the Secretary of State in terms of subsection (2) of the new clause will require information to enable him to ascertain whether the conditions mentioned are fulfilled, none the less the local authority is the body best able to understand the local conditions and to make the appropriate judgment in such a situation.
From figures given recently in a parliamentary answer, all three islands authorities have not held back in selling local authority housing. They are all well above the Scottish average as a percentage of the public sector stock. Indeed, they would exercise such a responsibility and such a discretion reasonably and properly. It is a matter of regret that the Secretary of State has not been fit to give them that discretion.
The other practical fear expressed to me by councillors and officials in the islands is that the machinery adopted is such that if a teacher, no doubt very often one with long service with a local authority, makes an application to buy a house, the local authority will then be put in the position, as it were, of the "baddie" who will be going to the Secretary of State to stop him doing so. The fear was expressed that this might cause unnecessary ill-feeling in a very small community. The preferred situation in the outlying areas is that there be a general principle that, where it would be unlikely that a teacher would be given a house, if the situation was such that the council could agree to do so, the council could give a right and opportunity that would not otherwise have existed.
None the less we recognise that a significant concession has been made. We shall not press our amendment to the vote and we shall not oppose this important new clause that the Government seek to add.

Mr. Maxton: I welcome the new clause proposed by the Minister although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). What concerns me—and it is obvious from the two speeches the House has heard from the Government Benches—is that there has been opened in the armour a chink that the

Government will try to exploit to extend even further the right to buy by local authorities. The Minister will obviously now face a campaign from his Back Benchers to extend this right to buy to regional authorities and, one assumes, to all other Government Departments—the Ministry of Defence, the prison service, and so on. I welcome any move that brings control of the sale of council housing back to the local authority, who, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, are the people who know best about it.
I was delighted when the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said that all tenants should have the right to buy. He very quickly qualified that when some hon. Members asked about people in private tenancies. Some of us believe that if there is to be this right—and we do not think there should be—it should include all tenants in private properties either where those private properties have been built by public fund, as is the case for some private properties in my constituency, or where the landlord has received substantial grants from the local authority or from national authorities in order to restore those properties. If that is the case, any tenant ought to have—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sorry that he wishes to make the question of council house sales to regional council tenants a difference between us. Does he not accept that his party argued very forcefully during the Committee stage of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act for the very exploitation of the chink in the armour that he appears to be deploring?

Mr. Maxton: I was not a member of the Committee, but the Labour party certainly opposes the blanket sale of council houses by any authority.

5 pm

Mr. Hugh Brown: I do not wish to detain my hon. Friend as I know that he has to meet the CBI, but the story has been distorted, as those of us who were members of the Committee know. If the Government wish to dispose of council houses at bargain prices, why do they not apply the same principle to their own property, such as that owned by the prison service and the regional councils?

Mr. Maxton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. McQuarrie: Prison officers are allowed to purchase their houses. Ten officers at Peterhead prison in my constituency are now purchasing their houses and many more have applied to do so. The right to purchase therefore already exists.

Mr. Maxton: Yet again, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) is wrong. Certainly, where the houses are surplus to needs the Scottish Office is allowing prison officers to purchase them, but prison officers do not have the right to buy under the Act.

Mr. McQuarrie: Yes, they do.

Mr. Maxton: No, they do not. I see that the Minister is putting his hon. Friend right on that. I shall not pursue the matter as I am conscious of the time—my time—because the Scottish group of Labour members are meeting the CBI—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] proving that we are a very tolerant group and always take all views into account.
I am surprised that Conservative Members wish the right to buy to extend only to public housing and are not prepared to argue for its extension to private properties, especially those which have been the subject of substantial injections of public funds, in some cases far exceeding the original purchase price paid by the landlord. Surely tenants of such properties should have the same rights as others.

Mr. Bill Walker: As my hon. Friend the Minister is being assaulted by hon. Members from both sides, he has probably got this about right. My recollection is that the views of the islands councils received a sympathetic hearing from all members of the Committee and that my hon. Friend the Minister therefore committed himself to consider the matter further to see what could be done. Any sane, rational person must conclude that the Government new clauses go a long way towards meeting the councils' requests at that time. I therefore welcome the changes. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who has now left to go to the CBI, was right to say that some of us wish everyone occupying housing built by the State in one way or another to have the right to buy whenever that is possible and practicable. Any extension is therefore most welcome to us and should be welcomed by everyone.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his welcome for the new clause and his recognition that it is a genuine attempt to meet a problem. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has gone, as I wish to comment on his contribution. In this context, I should qualify the statement that I made when he intervened earlier. Although a janitor is indeed in the same position as a teacher in an island authority, many janitors live in tied houses and thus do not have the security of tenure which would give them the right to buy. Therefore, although my answer was correct in theory, the normal regulations regarding tied accommodation will in practice apply to many janitors.
I was most interested in some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cathcart. I hope that his hon. Friends will inform him of my replies, as I know that he has had to go to a meeting. In the new clauses, the right to buy is being restricted and qualified for the first time. Yet the hon. Gentleman seemed to regard that as a move in the opposite direction when he referred to the opening of a chink. Perhaps he will consider that point.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cathcart for informing the House that the Labour party opposes the blanket sale of council houses. That is the first policy statement that I have heard from the Labour Benches throughout the passage of the legislation. I live in hope that before today is out we shall hear something from the Front Bench spokesman about the Labour party's position as he was unduly, unnaturally and uncharacteristically reticent on the subject in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) was right to say that prison officers in his constituency were purchasing their council houses, but that is because the Government voluntarily offer prison officers the right to buy their houses on the same terms as those enjoyed by district council tenants. We have been encouraging regional authorities to operate a voluntary system of selling houses which are surplus to requirements

on the same basis. The Government are setting an example in this respect, but I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that prison officers do not have the right to buy, for the same reason as applies in the case of regional councils. First, the Government and such councils are not housing authorities. Secondly, most of the houses owned by regional councils are required for operational purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sterling (Mr. Forsyth) also referred to this matter and I know that many hon. Members are concerned about it. It was unfortunate that my hon. Friend, who attended the Committee assiduously, could not be present to move his amendment, but I listened carefully to the points ably put on his behalf by his hon. Friend the member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley).
As I have said, most regional council houses are required for operational purposes. For example, they may be let in connection with employment by the concil or on a temporary basis pending development. If councils have houses surplus to requirements, however, we have always recommended and shall continue to recommend that they should be offered for sale to tenants on the same basis as under the right to buy.

Mr. Ron Brown: The Minister complains about Labour party policy, but will he clarify the Government's policy on the sale of council houses to speculators? He must be aware that Edinburgh council currently plans to sell off more than 100 houses to Messrs. Miller, Barratt and Wimpey. That is an insult to the 12,000 families on the council waiting list, which is bad enough, but because the developers have been guaranteed 90 per cent. improvement grants many genuine owner-occupiers are being denied similar grants. Do not the Government feel strongly about that? They are always intervening in local government. Will they intervene in this case?

Mr. Ancram: It is perhaps not surprising that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in bringing in a matter which could not be further from the subject of the debate which relates to the interests of teachers on islands. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the subject that he raises is a matter for Edinburgh council, which owns the properties; I could not possibly comment on it in this debate.
As has rightly been said, there is a connection between the position on the islands and that of the regional councils. There has been a varied response from the regions to the application of a voluntary sales policy. Some have been more willing sellers than others and I appreciate that tenants find it difficult to understand why their chances of buying their homes are better in some areas than in others.
I should like to see the voluntary sales policy implemented more uniformly. I shall be asking the Department to approach the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the near future to see whether we can achieve an improvement in this respect. I accept that a problem has arisen where a region sells houses to a district, since the operation of the 1980 Act's cost floor prevents tenants from buying at a discount. This is one problem which my hon. Friend has encountered. As I said in Committee, this can be solved simply by bringing forward an order under section 1(7) of the 1980 Act which would exempt cost floor provisions. In Committee I gave an undertaking, which I repeat, that we will give serious consideration to making such an order.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks on the point that arises when property is being sold to a district. I wish to press him further. The position of tenants under regional councils, which have decided for reasons best known to themselves not to sell at a discount even though the property is being declared surplus, is untenable. The purpose of bringing in the right-to-buy legislation was to get away from the position where some tenants could enjoy the right to buy because they had progressive local authorities, whereas others were doomed never to have the right to buy.
My constituents who have been caught in central region find it difficult to understand why it is possible, as my hon. Friend has correctly pointed out, to put a restriction on the islands councils which means that a teacher can buy unless the regional council can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that the property is required for other purposes. What danger would there be in applying that safeguard to all regional councils? The Scottish Office may urge councils to sell but at the end of the day councils controlled by a Labour majority will refuse to comply.

Mr Ancram: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making. As I said, I am concerned because the voluntary policy has been operating less well in some areas. At this stage, I should like to take this up first with COSLA to see whether we can get a better system of voluntary sales. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is always difficult to ascertain what houses are surplus to requirements, when they are surplus and whether they might be required again. The matter is not simple. That is why, if the system can be operated successfully on a voluntary basis, that is the best way. I shall give serious consideration to making the order to which I referred to cover the other matter.
It is important for my hon. Friend's constituents to realise the distinction between islands authorities and regional authorities. The island authority is at once the housing authority and the education authority. It is wearing those two hats simultaneously. That is the basic difference and one of the reasons why the difficulty arose. Therefore, there is a specific reason why the measure was required for the islands, although I shall bear in mind the points that my hon. Friend has made about regional tenants. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied for the moment with what I have said.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) welcomed my acceptance of the amendments. I hope that he will appreciate that it was not so much a case of acceptance as of presentation, because these are Government amendments. They are a sincere Government attempt to recognise a problem that has existed in constituencies such as his. He made points about the difficulties faced by island authorities as education authorities. He will obviously appreciate that the rights of people who have been granted secure tenancies are also important. That is why we must get a balance, which I think is achieved by the two new clauses.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) referred to island-hopping. I feel fairly sensitive about the second word at this time; I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean it in that context. I assure him that I have visited a number of the islands, probably as many as he has, and I, too, am aware of the difficulties that they face.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) dealt with new clause 7. I understand that the

authorities themselves might have felt that it would have been easier and simpler if the decision had been left to them, but the hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that this would create difficulties, because people would feel that the islands authorities were against them if the matter had to go to the Secretary of State. If the islands authority was taking the decision, it would be even nearer the front line. Therefore, the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman did not hold much water.
More important, we went for this system rather than the one the hon. Gentleman suggested because of individual rights. I am not suggesting that any islands authority would act other than most fairly, but at the same time there could be an element of being judged in one's own cause. I am sure that as a lawyer he knows the theory why that is not satisfactory. There is an element of arbitration between two possibly conflicting points of view. In these circumstances, the fairest and best way to operate the system is by asking the Secretary of State to consider the matter and make the decision. That is what we have tried to achieve through the new clauses. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is the better way to approach the problem and that he will support the two new clauses.

Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. Friend has said that he will endeavour to get a voluntary agreement in consultation with COSLA in regard to regional authorities agreeing with district councils on giving a house to a person who is leaving the region. What will happen if a district council says to the region that it cannot house that person? A person who had faithfully served a regional council in a rural area and who was unable to obtain a house with the district council would be left out in the cold. Does my hon. Friend intend to take steps to try to ensure that the person who is unable to obtain a house from the district council because of its failure to get agreement with the regional council will at some time be able to purchase a house from the district council?

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend on that point. There could be a difficulty. If a person occupies a house because of the occupation in which he indulges as an employee, when the employment ceases, the person may be in difficulty. This does not happen just to people who have been employed by a regional authority. I do not think that a specific course of action could be adopted. I sympathise with the difficulties which regional tenants have had in some areas.
I want to see the voluntary policy operating more successfully. There are steps which I can take to try to achieve this. If at the end of the day nothing is achieved, I will be prepared to consider the matter again. If regions sell houses to district authorities and thereby undercut, the right to buy provisions for tenants, the best way to deal with that is by an order. As I said, this is a matter to which I want to give serious consideration. I hope voluntarily to find a solution which will satisfy my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling and for Banff and Buchan.
I hope that the House will approve the new clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS: PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

'In paragraph (b) of section 10(4) of the 1980 Act (certain provisions of Part II of the 1980 Act to apply to certain tenancies of premises occupied under contracts of employment), for the words ", 17" there shall be substituted the words "to 17A".'. —[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend the benefits of the right to repair to tenants of district councils and other housing authorities, who occupy tied houses. Although tenants of tied houses do not have security of tenure, they already enjoy the other rights that make up the tenants' charter under the 1980 Act with the exception of those rights that would conflict with their status as service tenants. The right to repair will be in addition to the tenants' charter. It is appropriate that this new right should be extended to tenants of tied houses. An amendment to this effect was brought forward in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and, while I supported the underlying principle, I said that the amendment's drafting was not entirely acceptable. I seem to recollect that I gave it fairly high marks, on the advice of those who advise me on drafting.
The hon. Gentleman agreed to ask leave to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that the Government would bring forward a suitable amendment on Report with exactly the same intention, to extend the right to repair to tenants of tied houses. That is the purpose of the new clause, and I trust that it will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Craigen: As the Minister pointed out, the Opposition put forward this proposal in Committee. I thank him for improving upon our excellent drafting. I trust that the marking range has increased as a result of the Government's draftsmen applying their minds to the problem.
As the Minister knows, I have already written to him about a deficiency in another quarter, and I await a reply on that matter. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for extending this right to those in tied accommodation. It seemed to us that there was a deficiency, because many people have a problem. I hope that the new clause will in some way meet that position.

Mr. Hugh Brown: What does the Minister mean by a tied house? Is it someone in tied accommodation owned by a district or regional council, or would a farm labourer working on an estate qualify under this heading?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question. They are the tied houses referred to under section 10(4) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. As he knows, those tenants have the right to a written lease and to sublet and, more importantly, they have the right to carry out improvements. It would be incongruous if the right to repair were not extended to them at the same time, which is what the new clause seeks to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSES REQUIRED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

'(1) In section 15(2)(b) of the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the court shall make an order for recovery of possession of certain dwelling-houses), for the word "14" there shall be substituted the word "15".

(2) After paragraph 14 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
The landlord is an islands council; and "15.—(a)
(b) the dwelling house is—
(i) held by the council for the purposes of its functions as education authority; and
(ii) required for the accommmodation of a person who is or will be employed by the council for those purposes; and
(c) the council cannot reasonably provide a suitable alternative dwelling-house for the accommodation referred to in sub-paragraph (b)(ii) above; and
(d) the tenant (or any one of joint tenants) is, or at any time during the tenancy been or, where the tenancy has passed to the existing tenant under section 13(1) of this Act, the previous tenant at any time during the tenancy was, employed by the council for the purposes of its functions as education authority and such employment has terminated or notice of termination has been given.".'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

INTERPRETATION AND REPEALS

(1) Expressions used in sections 1, 2, [removal of restriction on reapplication to purchase] and [Secretary of State's power to authorise refusal to sell certain dwelling-houses required for educational purposes] of this Act and in Part I of the 1980 Act have the same meaning in those sections as in that Part.

(2) The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule, and section 13(12)(b) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 shall be deemed never to have had effect.—[Mr. Ancram]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 10.

Mr. Ancram: This new clause and the two amendments that go with it are technical amendments which relate mainly to the Bill's transitional provisions. I hope that I shall not need to detain the House long. Clause 13(1) removes the interpretation provisions at present in clause 1 to a new clause at the end. That will also apply to clause 2, which was inserted in Committee, and the new clauses dealing with the removal of the 12-month restriction on re-applications to purchase, and the sale of teachers' houses by island councils. As a result, section 1(4) becomes redundant and the purpose of amendment No. 2 is to leave it out. New clause 13(2) introduces a new schedule of repeals which gather together all the provisions repealed elsewhere in the Bill.
Subsection (2) also provides that section 13(12)(b) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 is repealed and shall be deemed never to have had effect. Section 13(12)(b) amended section 15 of the 1980 Act, but unfortunately the amendment was defective because the 1980 Act had already been amended by schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous


Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981. Repealing the section will put the matter to rights and remove a potential confusion in the legislation.
I assure hon. Gentlemen that the section does not do anything material but clears up a deficiency. These are technical amendments and I hope that the House will endorse them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED

'After section 25 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following words:

"Right to be Consulted

25A.—(1) The landlord shall, within 12 months of the commencement of this Part of this Act, make and thereafter maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to enable those of its secure tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a matter of housing management—
(a) to be informed of the landlord's proposals in respect of that matter; and
(b) to make their views know to the landlord within a specified period.

(2) It shall be the duty of the landlord, before making any decision on a matter of housing management, to consider any representation made to it in accordance with arrangements made by the landlord under this section.

(3) The landlord shall publish details of the arrangements which it makes under this section and a copy of any document published under this subsection shall—
(a) be made available at the landlord's principal office for inspection at all reasonable hours, without charge, by members of the public; and
(b) be furnished, on payment of a reasonable fee, to any member of the public who asks for one.".—[Mr. Craigen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be conveniant to discuss new clause 2—

PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT TENANCIES

'After section 17 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
17B.—(1) Every body which lets dwelling-houses under secure tenant tenancies shall, within one year of the commencement of this section and thereafter from time to time, provide information in such form as it considers best suited to explain in simple terms:
(a) the provisions of this Part of this Act,
(b) the provisions of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981,
(c) the provisions of section 8 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966,
(d) the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants at common law in respect of the repair and maintenance of houses let under secure tenancies,
(e) such other matters as the body corporate considers appropriate.

(2) Every such body shall ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the information provided by it under subsection (1) above is kept up to date.

(3) The landlord under a secure tenancy shall supply the tenant with a copy of the information provided by it under subsection (1) above as soon as practicable during the period of one year following the commencement of this section and after the expiry of that period—
(a) when the tenancy is created; and
(b) when information is revised in accordance with subsection (2) above.".

Mr. Craigen: The purpose of the right to be consulted is to create more opportunities whereby public landlords may properly and adequately consult their tenants. The tenant participation advisory service has, for some time, pointed to the disparity which exists north and south of the Tweed in respect of such rights, because the Housing Act 1980 introduced consultative arrangements in respect of England and Wales. I understand that there are still some teething problems in respect of that legislation, but we feel that it is important that similar rights should be extended to Scottish tenants. There was a move to do so, which was rebutted by the Government during the course of the original tenants' rights legislation.
In Committee, it was suggested that the report of the Scottish Consumer Council entitled, "Tenants Associated—a Survey of Tenants Groups in Scotland" had shown that there was not a great deal of interest in tenants becoming more involved in the management of their properties. The director of the Scottish Consumer Council, Peter Gibson, wrote to me recently pointing out that that had misconstrued the reality, and that only a small minority of tenants were not disposed to becoming involved in arrangements for greater consultation. The great majority of tenants would appreciate being more directly involved in the decisions taken by public landlords, which would ultimately and directly affect them.
There was a debate, as the Minister knows, in the Scottish Grand Committee on 1 February last year dealing with tenant participation. His predecessor, the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, was then charged with responsibility for Scotland's housing. The Minister's hon. Friend is something of a movable tenant because his responsibilities at the Scottish Office have changed constantly since his arrival. During that debate, he extolled the virtues of tenant management schemes and moves towards greater consultation.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland spoke at a conference that I chaired in the Mitchell library, Glasgow, in September 1982, which dealt with the issue of tenant management schemes in Scotland. I recall that he chastised the Scottish local authorities at that time for falling behind their English counterparts in extending the development of housing co-operatives.
5.30 pm
It is timely to have the debate this afternoon, because the Minister may have had time to read a copy of the report by the review committee on housing co-operatives in Scotland, which was published recently. The review committee was set up following discussions at the conference seminar held in Glasgow. It examined closely all aspects of housing management co-operatives in Scotland, and some of the reasons why there has been reluctance, if not difficulty, in extending housing cooperatives there.
The review committee was chaired by Anja Amsell, the director of the Scottish council of the YWCA Housing Society Ltd. Maryhill was well represented on the review committee and brought a measure of good sense to its proceedings, arising from our experience gained on the tenant management schemes operating now in the Summerston area. Indeed, the Summerston housing cooperative was the first to be established in Scotland, arising largely from the initiatives taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), when he


was in charge of housing in Scotland. Those initiatives were followed quickly by schemes in Invershiel, and Caulderquilt, and we have high hopes of other tenant management co-operatives in the area.
It is important for the Government to address themselves to the review committee's report, because it makes some practical suggestions about the way to extend tenant participation and tenant management co-operatives in Scotland. The report was studied jointly by the tenant participation advisory service and the Co-operative Union education service. I hope that the Minister will at least give a hint today about how he sees the future role of TPAS, the Government funding of which is up for auction in 1986.
Tenant management co-operatives should be the subject of a "sleeves-rolled-up" exercise. The newly founded bodies invariably need practical assistance rather than a lot of extra paperwork or interesting leaflets and publications. It is felt that the TPAS might be able to develop its practical support. It is usually up to local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, which operates two tenant management co-operative schemes, the new towns and the housing corporations, as public agencies in receipt of public funds, to give practical support. I hope that the Minister will comment usefully on some of those matters.
As an aside, a paper was sent to me recently about tenant owners' repair co-operatives, which was produced by ASSIST Architects Ltd. That organisation seeks to promote the concept of owner-occupiers in tenement blocks being able to join others to repair their properties effectively on a co-operative basis, rather than entrust the work to the sometimes unsatisfactory services of factors. The Minister should consider that matter and decide whether that approach can be extended to become the principle and practice of good housing management in Scotland. There is no doubt that there are peculiarities about the problems in tenements, which require a specific and practical approach, not only by the public landlords but by the Scottish Office.
New clause 2, dealing with the provision of tenant information, is designed to ensure that some of the misunderstandings about tenants' rights and obligations are cleared away. Sometimes the people who work in the busy offices at New St. Andrew's House do not appreciate that their work does not always reach individual tenants and their households. In the new clause we are seeking to create greater awareness of rights and obligations. Shelter in Scotland has highlighted the need for bodies to provide information that is more easily digested in the average household. Sometimes we tend to use language which, even for the experts, is a wee bit cumbersome and tiresome to read. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that there will be greater dissemination of information. It will be information that is provided rather than information that is simply published, which is more likely to be read by people who know their way about.
If the Government's approach on the consultation paper on the right to repair is any guide, there is a need to ensure that the information is adequately disseminated. The Minister can screw up his face, but the fact is that many organisations did not know that that consultation paper had been issued. As the Minister knows, I took it upon myself to make sure that all the community councils and tenant

organisations in my area got a copy of it. Some of those people were very indignant in the returns that I have seen. They must have been quite indigestible for Mr. J. Irvine in room 404 of New St. Andrew's House, when he received them.
I hope that the new clause will meet the approval of the Minister and the House.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I support the commendable new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I was surprised at how enlightened the Labour party has become. Too often in the past it has treated council tenants in a paternalistic way, especially at local level. The provisions for consultation suggest that new standards are being sought. Whether the lower echelons at council level will be willing to accept some of the provisions in the new clause that the hon. Gentleman generously brought to the attention of the House remains to be seen.
There is no doubt that there has been a change in recent years in the attitude of public landlords to their tenants. Some of them were provoked by demonstrations of annoyance by tenants over lack of consultation, particularly about modernisation schemes, when people found that cherished fitments that they put into their houses at their own expense were torn out as part of a modernisation deal that had to be complete in every respect, according to bureaucratic ideals. Housing divisions began to find that they could not get away with that. Gradually the processes of consultation improved. An example is the work by the Scottish Special Housing Association which has been good about some modernisation schemes that have been brought to my attention.
A study of the administration of the public housing stock over the years will show that there are things that the local authorities have done in their wisdom to attempt to improve conditions, such as removal of private garden space and the installation of open-plan, common ground. This was done against a welter of opposition from tenants. There was no doubt that the maintenance of garden ground by the public authority improved the environment and outlook of the neighbourhood somewhat. It also led to something that could have been avoided if there had been consultation. In certain sectors there were natural pathways where members of the public or neighbours of certain tenants could move from their houses to the shops or from bus stops to their houses, pathways which took them past the living rooms and windows of council houses. This caused unsightly, muddy paths where there should have been nice, cleanly cut grass. Because of a lack of prior consultation, I suspect that many members of this House began to receive requests from affected tenants for fences to be put up in order to protect the immediate environment of the houses.
It is sometimes very difficult to know where to draw the line but it is easier and can prevent trouble if the people who live in the area are consulted first. They will not lightly get rid of something that may be to their advantage. Imposition, however, is a bad thing. Many tenants tend to feel that they are pawns on a vast and impersonal board, to be moved about as the housing authorities direct. This attitude is sometimes reinforced when they go to offices, talk to different clerks on different days and are given different information. It is, therefore, very important that


the proposals for consultation and provision of information be rationalised and for there to be a positive duty on the part of the landlords to provide for this.
These are very useful clauses. I hope that the Government will take them on board. I do not consider the clauses very radical—more's the pity; some tenant management schemes go well beyond what is set down in the new clauses. If the Government will not accept them, in the interests of the principle, I hope that the Labour party will press the matter to a vote, but I cannot see any reason for the Government to turn down the excellent suggestions which are before the House.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I have reservations about these clauses, although, to be diplomatic—never one of my noted characteristics—I would avoid the temptation to cause the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to remind the House that he once accused me of being a "white settler" in some of these matters. I do not take exception to that, because to some extent it is quite true.
Unlike the present Government, I have always firmly believed in the right of local authorities to do as much as possible without interference from Government or from anyone else. Holding these views casued me a lot of difficulty because many members of my party, not just in the House but outside, wanted to dictate to local authorities, especially Labour-controlled authorities.
I therefore approach this matter with an open and fair mind about the desire and intention behind the new clauses to provide the maximum information to tenants or to anybody else who will be affected by the decisions of a housing authority and I am 100 per cent. in favour of encouraging, cajoling and even threatening colleagues in local authorities who are sometimes not the best communicators in the business.
5.45 pm
I do not think that the Government will accept the clauses. I do not know that the Minister is going to give any indication to me before I put my foot in it, but I imagine that he is not going to accept them, because it would mean writing them into the Bill, and, apart from possible drafting errors in them, they do not form a commitment that I am particularly keen to see in the Bill. My purpose in supporting the new clauses is to gain a recognition from the Minister that there is still a need to encourage participation and consultation between housing authorities and their tenants. I hope that in the light of my comments the Minister will respond in a fairly objective and not too partisan manner.
One matter which I would like clarified and which I do not think was raised in Committee is the present position of the tenants' rights charter. We are dealing here, after all, with an extension of the tenants' rights in the 1980 Act. Can I ask if all the new leases have now been agreed? We have all received correspondence from the Scottish Consumer Council about difficulties that were being exprienced. If my memory serves me right, in both Hamilton district council and Renfrew district council there was some legal tangle because some authorities—not, I think, these two in particular—were trying to write into their leases conditions that went far beyond what this House expected of them. In other words, instead of having a tenants' charter containing their rights, some Scottish housing authorities were trying to put into leases conditions that tenants would do repairs which were really

the responsibility of the landlord. I am not making a party point on this becuase I am sure that it applied to different housing authorities, whether Labour-controlled or not.
It was against that background, which I am sure the Minister will appreciate, that there was unanimous support for the general principles of the so-called "tenants' charter". The previous Government were involved and had been holding discussions and it was the 1980 Act that was thought to be the first opportunity that the new Government had of putting these in. It was an entirely separate thing from the sale of council houses. We are really at one, therefore, on the need to have some kind of tenants' charter. As I understand it, there was a requirement on housing authorities to prepare leases and to clarify the position regarding repairs in the first place. Can I ask the Minister if that has all been completed? I understand that, certainly in Glasgow, there are difficulties in keeping to that timetable.
It follows from this that there is a real need for information. There is the argument that, when we are not very certain or dogmatic about exactly what needs to be done, we can always ask for more research and information because it means that we have more time before we must make up our minds. This is concerned to some extent with the sale of council houses too. I am genuinely worried about the sort of ghetto mentality that might develop because of the policy on the sale of council houses. I am not trying to be controversial. The Minister knows what I am talking about, because in Edinburgh, with a Conservative council, just as in Glasgow there are areas where, no matter what sort of solutions are being tried in Edinburgh, the housing authorities have a great responsibility for the state of some of the major housing schemes. This applies not just to Glasgow and Edinburgh but to other authorities.
I am, therefore, not making a party point when I say that I am worried that in these areas it is not just a question of giving tenants rights but of trying to encourage people to believe that the housing authorities care about the quality of the environment in which people live. This is why I feel concern. I do not want to write in provisions which are all right in nice, quiet middle-class areas such as Milngavie and Bearsden where there are very few council houses and where it is easy to believe in the principles of consultation and discussion and all the rest of it. That is not nearly enough to begin to tackle some of the problems with which I am concerned.
Obviously, I cannot speak for my Front Bench, but the principle of giving information is a means of stimulating greater public interest in the problems faced by some of these communities. In my opinion those problems will get worse rather than better because of the housing policies that the Government are pursuing.

Mr. Ancram: In a sense we have had a useful debate on tenant participation as well as on the subject matter off the two new clauses. As always, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). He is right that not all leases have yet been completed. I understand that about half have been, but the rest are satisfactorily on their way to completion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that within the tenants' charter those leases provide a useful source of information on tenants' rights.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about certain areas. I have always taken the view that information and


discussion are important to deal with some of the problem housing areas. The attempt to involve tenants is important, and I certainly do not object to the principle.
However, I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he would support the new clauses. I recall that in Committee that he talked about statutory consultations. Indeed, he said:
I must confess that I am not a statutory Member of Parliament. I have always objected to people in the Labour movement—and we seem to have more now than ever before in outside bodies that are legion—saying that we must have a statutory right to do this, to do that and to do the next thing.
He then made an important point that struck a chord with me and, I suspect, with other members of the Committee. He said:
As a Labour councillor I would resent Parliament telling me that I should consult my constituents."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 6 December 1983; c. 373.]
In a sense, that seems to be the principle behind the new clauses. They create a statutory duty to consult. Therefore, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, I was somewhat surprised to hear that he would support them.
I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Most Conservative Members would agree that one of the problems on many Scottish council house estates is that for too long tenants have been moved about like pawns and have been treated in a statistical rather than personal way. There has been an element of depersonalisation, and that has motivated my support for the tenants' charter and an increase in tenants' rights. That has certainly motivated the Government's intention to pursue that course. It is an extension of that to look at tenant participation and consultation. As I have said, I have no opposition to the principle of that form of consultation.
We have heard that new clause 1 would require landlords to prepare a scheme for consultation with tenants on housing management matters. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) would concede, that proposal is borrowed from the Housing Act 1980. Elsewhere in that Act—this is perhaps a technical point—there is also a definition of what constitutes
a matter of housing management".
Whatever my view on the generality of the new clauses, without such a statutory definition it would be extremely difficult to establish which matters should be placed before tenants and which should not.
Even were the new clause not defective in that way, I could not recommend its acceptance. From some of the comments made in Committee I understand that the hon. Member for Provan was not the only hon. Member who feared statutory consultation. As a constituency Member of Parliament, and from what I have been able to ascertain from my Department, I believe that there is very little evidence of any demand from tenants for the introduction of formal arrangements for consultation. Indeed, to impose a statutory duty on councils to consult their tenants would add a heavy burden in terms of manpower and resources. That is another element of which we must be conscious. Given the concern that Labour Members have previously expressed that the Bill should not add to local bureaucracy and administration, I was somewhat surprised when the hon. Member for Maryhill tabled the new clauses.
I do not oppose the principle of consultation where the demand for such consultation exists. I believe, however, that such consultation will be more effective if it is based on arrangements entered into voluntarily. That is why my Department funds the tenant participation advisory service, a principal aim of which is to promote tenant consultation.
The hon. Member for Maryhill talked as though the TPAS was funded only up to 1986, but a three-year funding is beginning at this precise moment. I would not like it to be thought otherwise.

Mr. Henderson: I am carefully following my hon. Friend. He seems to have put his finger on the nub of this matter, that consultation and good relations between a local authority and its tenants have more to do with the spirit, intention and attitude—my hon. Friend used the word "depersonalisation" which is the other side of the coin—rather than with rules, regulations and mandatory procedures.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an important aspect of this problem. The hon. Member for Maryhill, who takes a great interest in these matters, will know that voluntary consultations such as he has held, with housing associations and council estate tenants are more likely to be successful than something which is imposed.
New clause 2 would require authorities to provide tenants with more and clearer information about their tenancies. I have some sympathy with the aims of the new clause, but I cannot accept that the administrative and financial burden for local authorities which would result would be justified. The 1980 Act already requires authorities to provide tenants with a written lease, which must contain the terms of their tenancy. The additional information on leases which new clause 2 would require authorities to issue to their tenants would solve no problems but would, I suggest, be little used by the tenants and would impose additional burdens on housing management staff, who, I am sure, have many more pressing problems to deal with.
There is little between us on the principle of the need to consult and inform, but that can best be done informally. The Government have shown their support for that in their support of the TPAS. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Maryhill to ask leave to withdraw the new clauses. If he does not, I must urge the House to reject them.

6 pm

Mr. Hugh Brown: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a few comments. The Minister knows that it is not my intention to delay progress.
Several parts of new clause 2 are worthy of comment, although I do not necessarily speak in their support. I understand that some difficulty has been experienced in the interpretation of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. I am not a lawyer and I have always thought that to be a big help in the House because it has prevented me from becoming too technical. I apologise for raising this matter. I know that the Minister has some knowledge of the matrimonial homes legislation. Concern has been expressed and there has been


misunderstanding about rights in that respect because some authorities play off that legislation against the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
New clause 2 is sponsored by Shelter, as are most of the others. It would be less than generous not to recognise that some of the voluntary bodies working in the housing sphere have come across difficulties associated with the interpretation of the 1981 Act and the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. Will the Minister assure us that he is aware of the problem with which clause 2 deals and which might help us out of our difficulty?

Mr. Ancram: I am not aware, and as far as I know neither is my Department of any specific problem relating to the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to enlarge on the issue, perhaps he will write to me and I shall, of course, reply.
The purpose of new clause 2 is to provide information. It does not seek to solve any specific problem. I hope that my hon. Friends will have heard what I said earlier, and that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Craigen: I note what the Minister said. I am impressed by the new-found sympathy for housing authorities and their manpower and resources as that sympathy is not usually shown when we seek it elsewhere. Perhaps I gave the impression when I spoke earlier that I regarded this issue as entirely a management exercise.
I extolled to the Minister the virtues of the review committee report on housing co-operatives, although I see it as being the ultimate in tenant involvement. The two new clauses are designed to trigger off consultation and the right to information which we regard as important. The clauses are intended to be the primary stage in good housing management policy.
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for his remarks. I have always considered it important for tenants to think that they can get close to the bodies that are responsible for their tenancies. We should narrow the gap between the bureaucrats and the tenants. From what I have seen in my constituency, I believe that it is important to involve tenants in the management of housing schemes. At one time one could say that tenants were concerned primarily with their houses, but I believe that they have become increasingly concerned, and rightly so, with their immediate environment. Housing management co-operatives have provided the opportunity for tenants to involve themselves collectively in their immediate environment.
I am aware of the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) in certain matters, but his diplomacy is not a matter on which I would criticise him. He was right to touch on the issue of written leases, with which we shall be dealing later. The Opposition think that it is important to put down a marker on the right to consultation and more information. We must press the new clauses if only to show the earnestness of our intent.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 213.

Division No. 126]
[6.05 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bagier, Gordon A. T.





Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beith, A. J.
Litherland, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Loyden, Edward


Bermingham, Gerald
McCartney, Hugh


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
McKelvey, William


Bruce, Malcolm
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
McNamara, Kevin


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McTaggart, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Martin, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Corbett, Robin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meacher, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Brien, William


Deakins, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Pavitt, Laurie


Dubs, Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alex
Prescott, John


Ellis, Raymond
Randall, Stuart


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Faulds, Andrew
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Robertson, George


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Forrester, John
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freud, Clement
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Garrett, W. E.
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Gourlay, Harry
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tinn, James


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wainwright, R.


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
White, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Johnston, Russell
Wilson, Gordon


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kennedy, Charles



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. John Home Robertson.


Lambie, David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Benyon, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Berry, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Body, Richard






Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Hooson, Tom


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bright, Graham
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Burt, Alistair
Key, Robert


Butcher, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Butterfill, John
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knowles, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Knox, David


Chapman, Sydney
Latham, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Lawler, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cockeram, Eric
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Luce, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Lyell, Nicholas


Crouch, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Macfarlane, Neil


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John


Dicks, T.
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maclean, David John.


Dover, Denshore
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Dunn, Robert
McQuarrie, Albert


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, David


Evennett, David
Major, John


Eyre, Reginald
Malins, Humfrey


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Malone, Gerald


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marlow, Antony


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David


Galley, Roy
Merchant, Piers


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Ground, Patrick
Needham, Richard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Philip


Harvey, Robert
Osborn, Sir John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayes, J.
Parris, Matthew


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hayward, Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pollock, Alexander


Henderson, Barry
Porter, Barry


Hickmet, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert
Powley, John


Hind, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hirst, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey





Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Walden, George


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Spencer, D.
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE CONDITION OF TENANCY

'In section 16 of the 1980 Act, subsection (4)(a) shall be amended by adding after the words "subsection (2) above" the words "whether or not the lease has been duly executed.".'—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause involves a technical matter of some importance. Section 16 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 deals with leases and secure tenancies. Section 16(4) of that Act enables a tenant in a secure tenancy who considers that the lease drawn up by his landlord does not fairly reflect the tenancy's existing terms to go to court to settle the dispute.
I understand that difficulties arise if a tenancy agreement is in the process of negotiation and has not been executed because of a dispute about the terms. We may be wrong technically, but we are advised that recourse to the courts to settle a dispute cannot take place until a secure tenancy exists. The new clause aims to make it clear that when a dispute occurs about the drawing of a tenancy agreement, the tenant has recourse to the sheriff court to settle the dispute instead of only after the agreement is executed. Without a change, the tenant would have to put his name to the tenancy agreement before having the right to go to the sheriff court to dispute the terms.
I do not wish to delay the House further, because debates about broader principles are still to come. I hope that the Minister can comment on the new clause and reassure us that the difficulty is met. I hope that he will regard the problem sympathetically.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for setting out the reasons for the probing new clause. I shall explain the position, but I can not provide authoritative interpretation of statute, because that is a matter for the courts.
There is no ambiguity about section 16 of the 1980 Act, which provides tenants with a means of challenging conditions in tenancy agreements drawn up by their


landlords if the conditions do not fairly reflect the existing terms of tenancy. However, when a tenant has signed his lease, the existing terms of his tenancy are, by definition, the terms embodied in that lease. There could be no question of that lease failing to reflect those terms fairly. In short, there is no doubt that a tenant's right under section 16 to challenge the terms of the tenancy agreement drawn up by his landlord ceases when the tenant signs that agreement.
However, section 17 enables tenants, after they have signed their leases, to apply to the sheriff to strike conditions out of the leases if they consider that the conditions are unreasonable and the landlord refuses to agree to the waiving of those conditions. So tenants have the right to challenge the terms of their tenancy agreement before they sign it if they consider that it does not fairly reflect the terms of the tenancy, and they have the right to challenge the terms of the agreement after they have signed it, if they consider that it contains conditions that are unreasonable in terms of section 17.

Mr. Dewar: It is unlikely that any other hon. Member wishes to join this little debate. I see that I am right. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, he is saying that I have misunderstood the situation, and I accept that. He says that under section 16(4) there is a clear right to challenge the terms of a lease before it is signed, if there is a dipute about how it is drawn up, and that in the aftermath — as one might call it — of signature and execution, it is still possible under section 17 to petition the courts on the ground that a condition of the tenancy that has been executed is unreasonable. Presumably, because of that statutory right, it could not be argued that the tenant was barred from arguing that case because he had signed the lease at an earlier stage.
If that is so, and despite the becoming modesty of the Minister's remarks about his authority on matters statutory, I am quite happy to accept what he says. The new clause came from the Scottish Consumer Council, which has taken a helpful interest in this amending legislation, and I have no doubt that it will be interested to know what the Minister said. If there is further confusion, no doubt it can be cleared up in other ways at later stages of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Housing for elderly or disabled persons

'In subsection (11) of section 1 of the 1980 Act the following shall be inserted after paragraph (c)—
(d) where a dwelling-house is one which the local authority usually lets to elderly or disabled persons.".'. —[Mr. Craigen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is about the continuing problem in Scotland of the lack of suitable housing for elderly and disabled people. It seeks to remove, or exempt, local authorities from the obligation to sell housing stock such as one or two-apartment housing that is particularly suited to the needs of elderly and disabled people.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman stumbled for a moment, and I suspect that he should have said, "To remove from tenants the right to buy" the kind of houses to which he is referring.

Mr. Craigen: I am hardly on my feet before I am interrupted. I am trying to establish in the Minister's mind the importance of the scarcity of accommodation for elderly and disabled people. About one quarter of households in Scotland are now occupied by single people, and the great preponderance of those households are occupied by single elderly people.
It has become politically popular — certainly, it is politically necessary — to refer to the importance of sheltered housing accommodation. I know that in Glasgow there is a substantial waiting list for sheltered accommodation. I think that it runs to about 5,000, but not long ago it was only 3,000, and that was worrying enough. Moreover, the problem is reflected in many other parts of the country.
The great majority of elderly people do not require sheltered housing, but they require suitable and adequate housing. It is important that the housing stock of one-and two-apartment houses should not be so eroded that the limited options available to the local authorities are reduced. We believe that provision should be made in the amending legislation to safeguard elderly and disabled people. I urge the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) introduced his new clause in an extremely reasonable manner. It is one that sounds fine superficially, but the more one looks at the proposition that it contains, the more one sees that it would be counterproductive if it were accepted, partly because it would be a restriction of the rights of tenants who had been given rights under the 1980 Act, and partly because one of the great merits of the sale of council houses is that it deals with the very problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers —the need for more accommodation for single persons, particularly single elderly people. The best way to provide resources which otherwise would not be available is by pursuing the sale of council houses with enthusiasm and encouraging tenants to seek to buy their own houses. In that way councils can provide the houses that are needed now, and not the houses that were needed 20, 30 or more years ago. The sale of council houses to sitting tenants is one way of dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman seeks to remedy. I therefore oppose the new clause.

Mr. Maxton: I support my hon. Friend's important new clause, particularly as it affects Glasgow, part of which I represent. Glasgow has many houses that were built for the single elderly person. However, they are not covered by the present legislation because they are not strictly sheltered housing for the elderly, specially developed for elderly and disabled people. I have quite a lot of one-or two-apartment blocks in my constituency. They are occupied almost exclusively by elderly people, and they are required for more elderly people when the present occupants leave. One block in my constituency, at Dougrie Place in Castlemilk, has an alarm system attached to a nearby old folks' home. In theory, the alarm goes through to the matron or the person who is on duty at the home, and that person phones the doctor. Unfortunately, financial restrictions have meant that the system has never


been operated, although it has been installed for some two years. However, those houses do not come under the legislation, and they should do, particularly in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson).
6.30 pm
Glasgow district council has been allowed a capital allocation of £52 million for the coming year. That sum will be available only if the council is prepared to increase rents by the exorbitant amounts that the Government would like to see imposed, and if it fails to do that it is likely to have its capital allocation reduced to £39 million. I have talked to Glasgow district councillors about the matter and it is clear that even with the full £52 million, not one new house will be built; all that money will have to be used for the redevelopment and improvement of the existing stock. Thus, no new sheltered housing will be available in Glasgow.
That £52 million includes the supposed sum that will come from the sale of council houses, but that is a myth. It is said that if one house is sold, another can be built from the money received. If properties that are occupied by elderly people are sold to those people, they are likely to have a long tenancy behind them and, when this measure is passed, they will receive the full 60 per cent, discount. In other words the council will receive only 40 per cent. of the value of the house, and it cannot build a new house at modern values on that basis.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman says that no new sheltered housing will be built in Glasgow next year. Will the housing associations be building any sheltered housing in Glasgow? A special allocation of funds is made to the housing associations specifically for building sheltered housing, and I can hardly believe that not one house will be built by them under the sheltered programme.

Mr. Maxton: Some may be built by housing associations but they will not necessarily be available for allocation by the district council to those tenants whom the council believes require sheltered housing. In my constituency two areas have been allocated to the Hanover building association and one to the British Legion Association for sheltered housing, but neither body is able to start building because it does not have the funds. In other words, it is not just a question of the district council not having the funds to do this type of building; even the associations that are specifically there to build such houses do not have the funds to do so.
I was saying that, in the main, for the properties about which we are speaking the district council will receive only 40 per cent, of their value. Equally, in most cases, particularly when dealing with the elderly and retired who are seeking to purchase their homes, the loans that are given to purchase those houses come from the local authority. Thus, the authority does not make a net capital gain on the deal. On the one hand it is selling property at a low price and on the other is having to lend the money to enable people to buy. People over 55 are unlikely to obtain a mortgage from a building society, even though they must seek one in the first instance.
Therefore, it is not true to say that the local authority will get extra capital resources from the sale of council

houses with which to build more new properties. Indeed, it can be losing from its stock those houses that are needed desperately for elderly people who cannot afford the rents of bigger houses, who no longer wish to live in bigger houses but who wish to have the protection that is often provided in blocks of flats — even those without any special arrangements — because they are more secure than the normal tenement blocks.
In an area such as Glasgow, which has an ageing population, more and more people require this type of accommodation. It is a disgrace that while the local authority is being forced to sell off its houses, it is being restricted in the amount of capital available and is unable to build new houses to replace them.
I welcome the new clause because it would extend the existing provision and mean that more houses would be available, not just for the few elderly people who can afford to purchase them, but for the large bulk of tenants in council houses who are getting older and who require different accommodation. Further, if these properties are maintained within the housing stock, elderly people will come out of the three, four and five-apartment houses, so releasing them for the younger people who require them. That would make more sense than the blanket sale of council houses that the Government desire.

Mr. McQuarrie: I see merit in part of the new clause. I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) but I should have thought that there was adequate provision for the needs of the elderly in section 1(11) (c) of the 1980 Act, which says:
where a dwelling-house is one of a group which has been provided with facilities (including a call system and the services of a warden) specially designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled persons.
That means that some elderly persons' houses may not be sold, and presumably that would preclude the right of some elderly people to purchase their houses. It is our intention to give the elderly just as much right as younger people to purchase their homes.
I see some merit in the new clause in relation to the disabled. Where a local authority has provided a house for a disabled person, not only the district council but the social work department of the region will have subscribed to the finance that was necessary to make alterations to the property, such as the building of ramps, the widening of doors and converting the bath into a shower. Such houses should be retained.

Mr. Maxton: This is the third time that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has got it wrong. We are debating a measure that amends the existing Act, which states that if ramps are built, doors are widened and other alterations are made for a disabled person, that property cannot be sold by the district authority. That provision was inserted in the original measure largely as a result of Opposition pressure. It would not be a bad idea if the hon. Gentleman had a quick look through the Act before making speeches on the subject.

Mr. McQuarrie: I take no notice of what the hon. Gentleman says. If he reads the new clause he may get a bit of intelligence into his head because it refers to
a dwelling-house … which the local authority usually lets to elderly or disabled persons.
I see merit in the proposal because of the inclusion of those words. I assure the hon. Member for Cathcart that I am


aware of what the Act says, having read it probably with more understanding than he did. I was a member of the Standing Committee and played an active part in those deliberations. Perhaps the Minister will explain the precise position of houses that are adapted for the disabled. Will they be released for sale or will they be restricted, in the way that the new clause proposes, and not be available for purchase?
If my hon. Friend can give us an assurance that housing for the disabled will be retained, I shall accept that that is what we are looking for. I do not subscribe to the view that the general ratepayers of any local authority, particularly in small local authorities such as mine, should be subjected to the expense of adapting a house for the disabled when that disabled person does not want to purchase the house and ultimately dies, leaving the house available. If the person has not purchased the house, a member of the family could do so. The new clause as it stands would allow the local authority to retain the house and refuse to allow the person to take possession. That is not contained in the Act and that is why I am asking for clarification. If my hon. Friend can give me that clarification there is no need for the new clause.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) introduced the new clause in his customary reasonable manner, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) pointed out, it is sweeping in its effects, as the speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made clear. The hon. Member for Cathcart raised a number of related general points, in particular about the capital allocation to Glasgow. The capital allocation takes account of the point made about loans being provided by the authority, that individual authorities' estimates of income from receipts are adjusted to exclude sales where the authority provides a loan. However, in general, 95 per cent, of loans for council house purchases are made by the private sector. We are extremely encouraged by the way in which the financial institutions have risen to the challenge of the opportunity provided by the right-to-buy legislation.
The hon. Member for Cathcart made a second point about rents in Glasgow. He did not make it clear to the House, although no doubt he will have an opportunity to do so, whether he is in the McFadden group or the backbench group that overruled the views of the executive and the officers in that debate.

Mr. Maxton: I am on the side of my election agent, Mr. Pat Lally.

Mr. Stewart: No doubt the ratepayers of Cathcart will be interested in that information.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East said, the new clause would remove the right to buy from elderly and disabled tenants and from anyone who happens to live in a house that the authority could claim was ordinarily let to the elderly or disabled. For example, someone who had inherited a tenancy from his or her parents would be denied the right to buy under the new clause. As a result, almost all one or two-apartment houses in Scotland might be excluded from the right to buy. As my hon. Friend said, the right to buy gives authorities extra resources to improve their housing stock elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) asked me to elucidate the provisions in the

existing legislation concerning the stock of sheltered and amenity housing for elderly and disabled people. I am happy to give him the reassurance that he seeks In the 1980 Act, sheltered housing is wholly excluded from the right to buy. If tenants were allowed to buy individual sheltered houses this would undermine the viability of such schemes, which will have been designed as a unit with a warden and services.
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend also asked about special needs housing, adapted housing, for the elderly and disabled, where the house did not form part of a sheltered housing development. The sale of such houses is not of immediate consequence to other tenants, but if such houses have been built and adapted with special features for elderly people, section 4 of the 1980 Act allows an individual authority to impose a pre-emption condition on the sale of such houses, which will allow the council to buy the house back, if it wishes, when it is for sale.
In addition, when an authority receives an application to purchase from the tenant of the house that has been specially adapted for elderly people, it can, as an alternative to imposing a pre-emption condition, make: an application to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 3 A of the 1980 Act for his consent to refuse to sell the house. These provisions are working well; we have received no representations to the contrary.

Mr. Henderson: One thing that has emerged from the debate is that, given that the number of houses roughly meets the number of families now, which is different from that in days gone by, there seems to be general agreement in the House that there is still a shortage of accommodation for elderly people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department will look to see whether there are ways to further encourage the private sector, as well as the public sector, to concentrate on this need?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right, and we have been encouraged by the initiative that the private sector has recently taken — for example, in the provision of sheltered housing for sale. New build housing will provide an important facility and an important type of housing provision, particularly for those who wish to move to smaller accommodation.

Mr. Craigen: I know about the demand, in certain areas, for the housing to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but that is for purchase, not for letting. Has the hon. Gentleman quantified the number of people who are looking for accommodation for rent, as distinct from the numbers who are being catered for by the private buildinger and who want to buy?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I was talking about new building for sale, which was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East was making. The present legislation contains adequate safeguards to enable councils to retain a stock of houses for elderly people with special needs in their housing stock.

Mr. Craigen: Is the hon. Gentleman giving me a blunt assurance that if we do not press this matter to a Division he will look sympathetically on those applications that he receives from the authorities?

Mr. Stewart: We have received 30 applications, of which 10 were withdrawn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman


will accept that there has been no great volume of complaints from the local authorities since the passage of the 1980 Act that these provisions are not working well. In that light, I suggest that the new clause is unnecessary and undesirable and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Craigen: With those qualified assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

RESALE OF COUNCIL HOUSES IN RURAL AREAS

'In subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1980 Act, before paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
(bb) Where council houses are sold in rural areas under this Act the local housing authority may impose a condition on the sale, to the effect that the house may only be re-sold to someone who meets the criteria of section 26(3) below; this condition may be waived by the local authority in special circumstances; rural areas are those defined as 'countryside' by section 2(1) of the Countryside Scotland Act 1967.".'.—[Mr. Bruce.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 5—

SALE OF HOUSES (RURAL AREAS)

'After subsection (11) of section 1 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection;
(11 A) This section shall not apply where the sale of dwelling houses situated within an area or community which is designated a rural area or community by the district or island council exceeds 25 per cent, of the stock available to rent if a waiting list for dwelling houses remains unless the Secretary of State shall certify that he will approve applications for building dwelling-houses to replace any dwelling-houses sold in excess of that percentage.

Mr. Bruce: New clause 6 would safeguard the future of houses in rural areas that have been sold under the 1980 Act. It provides that the sale of a house in a rural area as defined in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 should be restricted to applicants who have an interest in the area. The 1980 Act refers to applicants who are employed in a local authority area, or who will be offered employment in that area, or who wish to move into that area, or who are more than 60 years old and wish to move into the area to be near a younger relative or have special social or medical reasons for requiring to be housed in that area. In other words, houses should be allocated to people who have a direct interest in the area. That excludes people who merely want to spend their summer holidays there.
One of the problems that rural areas face is that they generally have fewer council houses so that if they are sold their availability for people who wish to move into the area is even more restricted than in more densely populated areas. In remote parts of Scotland only 19 per cent, of housing is owned by the council. In the north-east of Scotland there are a few areas where the sale of council houses has already created significant problems.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Mcquarrie) has left the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS:

"He has not."] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He has moved. He might be interested to know that if all the applications for council house sales in, for example, Gardenstown in his constituency were processed, 25 per cent, of council housing stock in the area would be sold. That would have significant implications for the community's future.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was in conversation with Mr. Speaker when he raised this subject. Gardenstown is one of the smaller villages in my constituency. Has the hon. Gentleman any more information on council house sales in larger towns?

Mr. Bruce: Yes. If all applications for council house sales around Turriff are processed, about 13 per cent, of the council housing stock there will be sold. The eqivalent figure for Peterhead is 6 per cent. In Gordon district, in the remote parish of Corgarff, only 33 of the 62 houses are permanently occupied. In other words, more than half are holiday homes. Only one council house is available. The constraints that I have mentioned significantly restrict local authorities' ability to meet local housing needs. It is important to emphasise that we are discussing the resale of council houses. Without the proposed safeguards we are in danger of allowing some remote villages to degenerate into mere holiday villages that are evacuated during the winter.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: How many of the 13 per cent, of houses that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, bearing in mind the fact that, thanks to the Government, tenants enjoy security of tenure, would be available for rent? If tenants wished to occupy them, how long would they have to wait? The hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes that, by being sold, those houses are no longer available to a group of people who, I suggest, would never acquire them.

Mr. Bruce: We are worried about tenants who live in council houses exercising their right to buy and then selling them as holiday homes to people who have no interest in the area. New clause 6 would protect the community from the effects of such sales. We have allowed for such a condition to be waived by a local authority in special circumstances. I accept that there might be no demand for a house other than as a holiday home. Having it used as a holiday home is preferable to its being empty, but selling it for such a purpose should be a last resort. It is regrettable that such sales are frequently a first resort, as they provide commercial advantage to some people, although they do considerable damage to the community.
When the 1980 Act came into effect my local council expressed anxiety that, as a result of the expected sale of 3·4 per cent, of council houses, the hopes and desires of many people on the waiting list would be frustrated. Gordon district is well on the way to selling more than 12 per cent, of its housing stock. When I last spoke to the council I was advised that the number on the waiting list was substantially greater than the number of houses that had been sold. I do not object to the principle of such sales, but merely wish to highlight the fact that the consequence of the right to buy, without provision of safeguards for rural areas, is that waiting lists get longer and people who want the privilege of living in a council house and,


ultimately the opportunity to buy that house, are finding acquisition of such a home more difficult. That is regrettable.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman said that the number of houses that have been sold was roughly equivalent to the numbers on the waiting list. He implies that people on the waiting list would have been satisfied if houses had not been sold. That is nonsense, as I suspect that none of the houses that have been sold have changed occupancy since they were sold.

Mr. Bruce: I do not have all the figures but I assure the hon. Gentleman that some houses have been resold as holiday homes. New clause 6 would prevent that.
Without additional safeguards, the sale of council houses as at present applied leaves many people on the waiting list with a longer wait. My local council made that point to me last week. It is having difficulty housing people. The Minister knows that my correspondence bag, unlike that of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) — perhaps because of the different needs of our local authorities—is filled with inquiries about how to apply successfully for a council house. Since being elected I have received only one letter about the difficulty of buying a council house. The problem, as reflected in my post bag, is relevant. There are parts of the Highlands and Islands where the problem is even more acute. I hope that the House considers the new clause and I urge the Government to recognise the consequence of providing no such safeguards.

7 pm

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I view this new clause with the greatest concern. We have already—albeit with some justification—reduced the rights of one group of tenants to buy. The new clause asks us to force people who exercise their right to buy to sell only to a limited group of people. When I saw the new clause on the Order Paper, I wondered whether its supporters had read section 26(3) of the 1980 Act. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made it clear that he had done so, which makes me even more surprised that he moved the motion. The new clause states that the only people to whom one is allowed to sell a council house are those who work in the area. That seems to be a reasonable group of people. Section 26(3) states that anyone who
wishes to move into the area of the local authority and the local authority is satisfied that his purpose in doing so is to seek employment".
The mind boggles as to how the local authority could be expected to deal with that criterion. What measures could the authority apply? How could a person demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local authority that the intention of the move was to seek employment?
People aged over 60 wishing to move to be near relatives may well be a category who should be potential purchasers of council houses, as are people with special social or medical needs. What about everyone else? What about those who want to retire to an area simply because they like the area? Are they to be denied the opportunity to purchase a house which formerly was a council house? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Opposition Members say, "Yes," and that is predictable. I expect such an argument from people who do not believe in the right to buy. These restraints make a nonsense of the right to buy and of what

will be the biggest investment in the lives of many of the council tenants who exercise that right. The new clause seeks to prejudice that investment and to undermine the rights of relatives of those people to dispose of the property' at the best possible price. This is an "all things to all men" clause. It is supported by people who mouth support of the right to buy but who in word and deed support measures that would seriously undermine that right.
We were told that the basic reasoning behind the new clause was to prevent the development and provision of holiday homes through resales. We were given many statistics, but not many on how many holiday homes we are discussing in Scotland. I suspect that there are precious few—

Mr. Bruce: One in Gordon.

Mr. Forsyth: We are told that there is one in Gordon. [Interruption.] Perhaps there are two or three in Skye.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: No.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how many there are.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has just said that there are two or three holiday homes in Skye. I do not have a specific figure, but I can assure him that the number is far higher.

Mr. Forsyth: It is revealing that one Opposition Member who put his name to the new clause does not even know how many council houses have been sold as holiday homes in his constituency. That seems to demonstrate the disingenuous attitude observed by hon. Members when the new clause was moved.
If the purpose of the new clause was to prevent this escalating problem of holiday homes, which no one seems able to define, why was the new clause not drafted accordingly?

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has been harsh about the drafting of the new clause. I have some misgivings about it. Is he interested to know that the people who drafted the new clause and who sent it to various hon. Members were from the Rural Forum, which includes the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information and for the opportunity to examine new clause 5 to which his name is attached. The new clause is surely not a triumph of drafting; it is so badly drafted that I would almost suggest to the Minister that he accept it because it would have no effect. The new clause states:
This section shall not apply where the sale of dwelling houses situated within an area or community which is designated a rural area or community by the district or island council exceeds 25 per cent, of the stock available to rent".
As the new clause does not define the date at which the stock is available for rent and each sale reduces the stock of housing available to rent, the new clause will never have any effect. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the drafting when he has put his name to new clauses which, although we understand their intention— we know that the Opposition are against council house sales — would have no effect. I am horrified that the new clause should come up at this late stage, when opinion


poll after opinion poll and election after election have shown that the Scottish people wish to exercise their right to buy.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) ought not be unduly worried about the number three because the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), as we came to know in Committee, thinks in multiples of three. We received 300 letters every time we had a meeting of the Standing Committee. A mistake was made in the new clause in putting down 25 per cent., instead of 33 per cent. If that had been done the hon. Member for Stirling would have fully understood the intention of the new clause.
We point out, as did the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), that the Government ought to note the problems that arise in rural areas. I say that as an hon. Member representing an urban constituency. Distinct problems arise in rural areas. Only yesterday, I obtained a reply from the Under-Secretary about the percentage of housing stock that has been sold. House sales in certain rural areas of importance run into percentages of double figures, whereas in most urban authorities they are less than 10 per cent. With local authority sales of more than 10 per cent, in Stewartry, Gordon and the Western Isles, the Government must take cognisance of the effect of that sales policy. In the new clause we are seeking to draw attention to that aspect.
There is a clear distinction between the new clause proposed by the Liberals which, as the hon. Member for Gordon pointed out, is about resales and our new clause which is about sales. Rather than try the patience of the House, and lukewarm as we are about the ineffectiveness of new clause 6, we would be inclined to give the new clause a measure of support if only to show that we share a common concern about the likely social and economic impact of the unrestricted sale of houses in rural areas.

Mr. Bill Walker: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the intervention from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I speak with some authority. It could be said that north Tayside is a rural and a holiday tourist area and that the sale of council houses by Angus district council and Perth and Kinross district council is something of which I am proud. Indeed, Perth and Kinross district council have sold 1,586 houses. Angus district council has sold 1,005 houses.
I shall now quote comments from the authorities who allegedly should be troubled by what hon. Gentlemen have been saying. Opposition Members have been theorising; I shall now talk in practical terms. No great stress or difficulties have been caused in the rural areas of Tayside, North as the result of an aggressive policy of selling council houses. Those of us who served on the Standing Committees on both Bills giving tenants their rights know that these problems are in the rural areas. I never minced words in Committee and I never minced words during the election on my views about giving the right to everyone to be able to purchase council houses. It is interesting that in my own constituency the Labour candidate, who was opposed to the sale of council houses polled just over 2,000. Is that not staggering?
If hon. Members suggest that in Tayside, North we do not understand the problems of council house tenants, I have news for them. In the town of Forfar more than half the houses are council houses. To suggest that we do not understand such problems and the problems in rural areas is absolute nonsense. I think that Liberals and SDP Members should think through very carefully what they are asking for. To suggest selling a council property to a tenant who then resells it at some later date to somebody else who wants to buy it and to live in the area—[HON. MEMBERS: "AS a holiday home."] I do not care, frankly, if it is being sold as a holiday home. My constituency would fall apart were it not for people going there on holiday. Let me make it quite clear that the largest proportion of income in my constituency is from tourism and the large number of people who come on a transient basis are vital to the economy. Indeed, some of them even come to pick berries, and they, too, are vital to the economy. To suggest that there is something ghastly and wrong about it is nonsense. I hope that the Government will reject this, as I expect them to do.

Mr. Home Robertson: I suppose that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is the only Conservative Member opposite from a Scottish constituency who can crow in the way he has just crowed because, as he will know from an article published in The Scotsman last week, with a bit of luck, he could be the only Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament left in the next Parliament. I found the argument he was advancing pretty alarming for his constituents. It sounded as if he would be happy for every council house in Forfar to be sold off as a holiday house. I cannot visualise that happening, but, even if it did, he sounded as if he would be quite happy to leave the house letting policy to the Earl of Strathmore. I suggest that the local education authority, whoever may be its members, is better placed to look after the needs of people who want to rent houses than is the Earl of Strathmore or any of the other gentry in the territory of his constituency.
New clause 6, moved by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), deals with the same problem as new clause 5, and I would be more inclined to support new clause 5. I suggest that new clause 6 goes about things in a rather complicated and relatively ineffective way. It does not seem the best way to try to regulate the disposal of houses by tenants who buy their houses in rural areas where there is a shortage of houses. It would probably be more effective to deal with the problem before it arises in the first place.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member made an observation during the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon, and he quoted approximately half a dozen different organisations that wanted new clause 6. Now that he is criticising new clause 6, will he advise these organisations that it was the most stupid thing they ever did?

Mr. Home Robertson: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an authority on stupidity. If the hon. Member could contain himself for a minute or two, he would begin to understand why I have misgivings about this approach to what I regard as a serious problem.
Apart from the fact, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said, that this tactic would reduce the value


of the houses of some tenants who purchase them in certain areas — and it would be discriminatory if this kind of condition were to be imposed on sales already taking place — it would also be shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. The houses in question would already have left the rented sector for all time. This is one approach to the problem, but perhaps not the best. Hon. Members can weigh up the argument in the course of the debate. There is already one sort of posthumous safeguard, which would come into operation only when it is too late to do any good, in the form of section 4(6) and (7) of the 1980 Act.

Mr. Bruce: The restrictions in the 1980 Act, and the fact that we are talking about the sale of council housing to sitting tenants, mean that the tenant buying the house in the first place is presumably resident in the area, but under the present Act he can then resell it. It is a little misleading, therefore, to suggest that the tenant in the first place is not resident.

Mr. Home Robertson: I accept that this is one approach to the problem. However, I am not certain that it is the most effective way of going about it. As I have said, there is the proviso in the 1980 Act that says that when one-third of the housing stock has been sold and when the Secretary of State is satisfied that an unreasonable number of houses sold have become second homes, then and only then can the Secretary of State make an order, subject to approval by Parliament, designating the area in question as a rural area where certain restrictions can be applied to the disposal of houses sold to tenants. I understand that even those restrictions apply for only 10 years. I do not think that that safeguard and the other one discussed in the debate go far enough.
In small remote communities where there may be very few houses to let in the first place, where the open market sale prices and private sector rents may be grossly inflated by demand for holiday accommodation, where incomes of people seeking rented accommodation may tend to be very low—and I think that applies to all rural Scotland-the situation for people seeking houses to let has always been difficult. I believe that it is getting worse, however, in the long term because of the way in which the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 operates.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. It surely is a non sequitur to suggest that any tenant who buys his house in a rural area will sell it on to a holiday maker or some such person. If Opposition Members are going to bring forward these new clauses, they must do a great deal more than merely chunter about the possibility of such sales. They must lay before the House facts and figures to justify the fear that the sale of council houses in rural areas will result in tenants selling them on to people who wish to have holiday homes. I have heard no evidence from the Opposition to justify the hon. Member's contention.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that short speech. If he will contain himself a little longer he will hear my arguments. I do not say that every tenant who buys a house will resell it as a holiday home, but such a person is as likely as anyone else to sell to the highest bidder, who is most unlikely to be on the council waiting list.
As a significant number of houses are to be taken out of the rented sector through sales to sitting tenants—a

trend which will no doubt accelerate as a result of the increase in discounts—safeguards are provided, but they will have only a marginal effect and will operate only when more than one third of existing district council houses have become holiday homes. I represent a mainly rural constituency and I have some experience of the problem that is developing. I cite just one example— Stenton — an attractive village at the foot of the Lammermuir hills.
In October 1980, when this performance started, there were just 16 council houses in that village. The last breakdown of the situation in East Lothian, a couple of months ago, showed that five of those houses had been sold. The proportion sold is just short of the one third required to trigger the safeguard in section 4 of the 1980 Act, but we do not yet know how many of those properties will become holiday homes. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) would shut up. There is plenty of time. We have all night. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time.
As I was saying, we do not yet know how many of those houses will be sold on to become holiday homes because the sitting tenants who bought them have not yet had time to move on and dispose of them. At this stage, the situation has not changed, but the time bomb is ticking away and there will be serious problems in the future. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) survives for long as a Member of Parliament for that area, which is unlikely, he will face the same problems to an increasing extent.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: No, the hon. Gentleman has already blethered quite a bit and he can blether again later with the leave of the House if he is lucky.
At the best of times, applicants for council houses in Stenton faced a long wait as there were only ever 16 houses and the turnover was very slow.

Mr. McQuarrie: How many people are on the waiting list?

Mr. Home Robertson: I am coming to that. Conservative Members seem to be getting very etched about this, but I have all the facts and figures. I wish to draw attention to the plight of the one individual and the six families now on the waiting list for a house in Stenton at a reasonable rent. That figure is thoroughly up to date, as I learnt from the Conservative councillor for that area on the telephone this evening. He is worried about the plight of those people. The whole House should be concerned at the plight of people waiting for houses as there is no more fundamental need for a family than a home of its own.
In Committee, the Minister constantly protested that council house sales made no difference to the problem because the tenants would have remained in the houses in any case. That is all very well in the short term. The problem arises when the occupier disposes of the house. If he had remained a council tenant the house would have been offered to the next person on the waiting list for rent, but that will not happen. The house will be sold to the highest bidder. In Stenton, as in so many similiar villages in rural Scotland, the next purchaser will probably be a commuter or a person seeking a holiday home. There will


be no hope for the young local family seeking a first home to rent. The problem will take a long time to build up, but it has already been identified as a serious one and it is bound to get worse. Conservative Members representing rural areas of Scotland will have to face the damage that they have done.
The problem exists throughout Scotland. Many people predicted that there would be more sales in the attractive rural areas, and that trend was confirmed in statistics given by the Minister in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on Monday. They showed that the percentage of housing stock sold has reached double figures in only five areas—Stewartry, north-east Fife, Gordon, Kincardine and Deeside and the Western Isles, all almost entirely rural areas. In those and other rural areas council housing always represented a smaller proportion of the total housing stock than in other areas so the high proportion of sales represents an even greater relative loss of accommodation to rent than might appear at first to be the case. I have illustrated the point by citing the case of Stenton, but I could give many other examples.
The Labour party has been worried about this problem from the outset. In its briefing paper to hon. Members, Shelter cites the Tweeddale district council's housing plan and the Scottish Consumer Council report on the same subject. It also quotes a leaked report from the Scottish Office dated 1979, before the problem began to build up, which stated that in rural areas
many people are not able to command income sufficient to meet their basic housing needs in the private sector and reliance on the local authority as a major force in adequate housing provision will continue.
If that is the official information, one wonders why the Scottish Office seems content to see a continuing rundown in public sector housing in rural areas.
In addition, district councils in rural areas find it difficult to replace the houses that they are forced to sell, due to a combination of two factors—the higher cost of building in remote areas and the Government's unremitting squeeze on capital allocations. That means that there is and will continue to be a rundown in public sector housing in Scotland. As I said in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling, Rural Forum is also worried about the problem. That is an umbrella organisation set up by the Scottish Council for Social Service, including a wide range of organisations. I shall give the whole list.

Mr. McQuarrie: Not again.

Mr. Home Robertson: I did not give the whole list before. It includes the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, the Scottish National Farmers Union, the Royal Highland Agricultural Society, the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Council for Social Service, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes and the Transport and General Workers Union. The same fears have been expressed by the NFU branch in my constituency, so not only trade unions and housing pressure groups are acutely worried about the erosion of the housing stock available to let in rural areas. We are entitled to a positive response from the Government to a problem identified by such a wide range of organisations and I hope that we shall have one today.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred specifically to Gardenstown in my constituency, one of the smallest villages with a very small number of council houses, but he said nothing about the houses in Newburgh, Pitmedden, Udny or Ellon or the proportion of properties that had become holiday homes. Not one of the council houses sold in Gardenstown has been sold as a holiday home—

Mr. Home Robertson: Not yet.

Mr. McQuarrie: The same is true for the entire Banff and Buchan district council area.
We are passing legislation to give people the right to buy their council homes. Whether there are resales in 10, 20 or 30 years is a matter for a future Government. The people who are purchasing council houses in rural areas are the existing tenants, who are most unlikely to leave their homes. Any houses that are being purchased as holiday homes in the rural parts of my constituency are in places like New Aberdour, where dilapidated cottages are being renovated. The rural area is being repopulated in that way but not by taking over council houses and reselling them as holiday homes. I do not see that happening in my constituency.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would have thought that it would have been the experience of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side who know something about country matters—the lairds, and my hon. Friend will know who I mean—that country people tend not to move. In the country areas we usually find that aged people of 80-plus have been living in the same house for 40 or 50 years. They are not going to buy their houses to sell to others.

Mr. McQuarrie: I accept what my hon. Friend says; that is the point I am trying to make. There will be no problem for a considerable time. I do not see the point in the new clauses. It might interest the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—his landed lairdship— to hear the relevant figures for the three main towns in my constituency. In Banff the housing stock is 3,887 and the waiting list is 12·8 per cent.; in Fraserburgh the housing stock is 3,932 and the waiting list is 9 per cent.; in Peterhead the housing stock is 4,804 and the waiting list is 10 per cent. We have a long way to go in the sale of council houses before reaching the figure of 25 per cent, in the new clause to which the hon. Member for East Lothian has put his name.
The new clauses have been conceived by the organisations quoted by the hon. Gentleman. They were not conceived by the hon. Members in whose names they stand. It has been obvious during the debate, when pertinent questions were put, that the people other than the Labour Members in whose names new clause 6 stands, did not have the requisite information to enable them to answer those questions.

Mr. Bruce: Will not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the 1980 Act has been in operation for three years but because our proposal has not yet been accepted we have no machinery to find out what happens to council houses after they are sold to the private sector? Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to commission research to find out how many are resold, we shall not know unless the new clause is accepted. To challenge us for not having the information is unreasonable.

Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Member knew his constituency well enough he would know how many of the council houses had been resold. He would know the people who are in them and could assess what kind of people had bought them. I am sure that in Gordon district not one solitary house of the 10 per cent. of council houses sold since the 1980 Act has been resold as a holiday home. I know part of that constituency, as the hon. Member well knows, because I gave him quite a portion of it in the redistribution.
I shall not detain the House further because I do not consider that either of the new clauses merits further debate. I shall oppose them wholeheartedly.

Mr. Douglas: We have had an entertaining, if not an enlightening, debate. I am always intrigued by the knowledge the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) displays of his constituency.
I want to deal with the balance of probability. Up to the moment, because the compensation that would go back to the authority would penalise people if they resold, the balance of probability, particularly in areas where there has been a reasonably stable population, is that it is unlikely that houses have been resold as holiday homes. It would be difficult for my hon. Friends and other hon. Members promoting the new clause to give statistical information.
What is emerging is that on balance of probability the provisions of the 1980 Act will have a more severe impact in rural areas than in urban areas in terms of changing the population. It is difficult to support new clause 6 because I do not see how we could embark on that type of amendment. However, there is merit in new clause 5, in which the Labour party is saying that the Government should examine the provisions of the Act in relation to sale rather than resale.
There is an obligation on the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office to investigate over a time the impact of the 1980 Act on the changing balance of population in rural areas. I understood the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to say that the benefits flowing from the legislation are marvellous and that he does not care what happens when council houses in Forfar are resold. That approach is too broad-brush. According to the hon. Member, if all local authority houses were sold to tenants and then resold as holiday homes the economic impact would be—

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member is very knowledgeable on the balance of probability. Surely he understands that what he has just said is not realistic.

Mr. Douglas: If I am interpreting wrongly what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise. He gave me the impression that he did not care whether all local authority houses in the public domain in Forfar were resold and became holiday homes because holiday homes and that type of accommodation were extremely beneficial to his area. I hope I am not misquoting him; I understood from him that his constituency would collapse if it were not for people coming in for recreational and holiday purposes. That might be beneficial to the cash flow but the sociological impact would be enormous in a place like Forfar. I would not regard my constituency as a rural area but the sociologicalimpact would be great if that happened in places such as Kincardine.
If the Minister resists the new clause, he should say what surveys he will carry out through his office into the impact sociologically and on the balance of population, particularly in rural areas, of the resale of council houses.
If people look for houses to rent in rural areas, but local authorities are prohibited from building houses because of the housing support grant, there is an obligation upon the Government to say how they would subvent local authorities which find that a large number of previously publicly owned houses are left vacant because they are holiday homes. That has a sociological and social impact.
I suspect that the Minister will resist the amendments, but I hope that we shall be able to persuade him that he has some obligation to take up the suggestion that has been made — which, I believe, has the support of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

Mr. Kennedy: Having listened to some of the almost theological arguments from Conservative Members, I think that I should clear up a couple of misapprehensions. I am happy to give the SDP's support to the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was right when he said that we are debating a theoretical point. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) fairly pointed out that the legislation had not existed long enough for its effects to be fully known. That is a legitimate point with which I would not disagree.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie)—I am sure he will not be surprised about that — who seems happy to make a decision tonight and to leave it to Governments in 10, 20 or 30 years' time to deal with the consequences. What worries me about the scheme and the possibility of resale is what might happen within that time in an area such as the Highlands of Scotland which is distinctive and has particular problems. It has been at the receiving end of the policies of Labour and Conservative Governments to attract the type of tourism and inward investment about which the hon. Member for Tayside, North spoke, and which I support, and to maintain an indigenous local population. It must be acknowledged that we are discussing the resale of council houses — the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) may not have been clear about the distinction—because I must make it clear that the SDP-Liberal alliance in Scotland, as much as south of the border, supports the right to buy. There is no equivocation about that. However, once people have about exercised that legitimate right to buy, the Act should provide for monitoring of the resale of council houses. In the Highlands, we face indigenous decline, economic recession and depopulation, and have done so for a long time. That is why I believe that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is perhaps misguided when he says that we should not worry about what will happen in 30 years' time. That will be a significant period in the Highlands because many of the problems we face go back longer than 30 years.
Decisions taken here will have far-reaching consequences for the Highlands for a long time. They will not be the problems that one could expect a Government in 30 years' time to deal with. When a problem needs Government action to solve it — we are talking about depopulation and large numbers of empty houses being used only for a few months of the year—it is almost


impossible to cure without draconian measures. It is a theoretical debate, but it raises serious principles. The Highlands have legitimate anxieties which deserve to be aired.
One talks to district and regional councillors and people who live in the Highlands, whose family background is there, and they confirm that one of the basic problems is that young people are moving out of the area because there is nothing there for them. Also, as the population becomes older, the available housing, whether private or council, which has been sold to sitting tenants, becomes more and more—

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not. The housing becomes more attractive for people to purchase. The problem is impossible to quantify. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan may be right; we might have to wait 20 years or 30 years to see the effects of the legislation.
The fact that there is genuine anxiety means that it is right that the matter should be debated in the House. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that, none the less, the Minister will say what steps the Government will take to monitor the position, because it could become serious.

Mr. Ancram: We have had an entertaining and useful debate on these two clauses. It is not a new debate, because we have had it on a number of occasions previously. It was rehearsed fairly fully in Committee. I am sure that if the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has anything to do with it, we will have it again.
I welcome the opportunity to make clear once again for the benefit of Opposition Members—I made the point over and over again in Committee, but it did not seem to get through although it is a simple concept-that houses that are sold are not lost to the housing stock. If tenants were not allowed to buy their own homes, there is no evidence that they would be likely to move away. Every time Opposition Members make such assertions I ask them to produce the evidence. They return time after time and make the same assertions, but when pressed they have no evidence to show that there is any truth in what they are saying. If the great majority of people who buy their own houses had not been able to do so they would have continued to rent them, often for a considerable number of years, whether they were in urban or rural areas.
The hon. Member for East Lothian has mentioned the village of Stenton on many occasions. I recollect it from my short association with that area. When he first mentioned it I said to myself, "The hon. Member might have difficulty finding out what is happening in the large urban conurbations because the numbers may be a little beyond him. In Stenton, the numbers are small. As a Member of Parliament he will be able to find out the facts about particular matters." He has found out one thing. He has told us that five council houses have been sold. He makes a dramatic issue of that. However, when we asked him to tell us how many of the houses have been resold,

he said, "I cannot." If he is prepared to make an assertion on low figures he should at least have the basis of those figures correct.
When the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of Stenton before Christmas, I challenged him to say how many of those houses would have become available for his waiting list had the right to buy not been available. Four weeks later he returns to the Chamber and makes the same speech, but he still cannot give us any information. He must learn that if he is to put forward an argument and claim that there is strength behind it he must back it with facts. Otherwise the Conservative Benches will get tired of listening to what he has to say.

Mr. Home Robertson: I apologise to the Minister for intervening in his speech, but as I am in the Chamber I shall take this opportunity to do so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his mind to the real question, which is what will happen to the houses that will be sold when the present occupiers move on? Does not the Minister accept that such houses will be sold to the highest bidder, and will not be available to anyone on the council house waiting list?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman asks me to speculate, so I shall say that the house may be sold to the highest bidder. For all I know, the hon. Gentleman's house may be sold to the highest bidder. On the other hand, he may decide to leave it to his family, as may the owners of these houses. The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is unsatisfactory to look that far into the future to try to draw definitive conclusions from pure speculation.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: No, I must get on. We have spent much time on the debate, and I want to cover some of the points raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North made the point better than I possibly can. He represents a rural area where the district council has pursued an agressive sales policy, but where none of the problems that Opposition Members keep theorising about have appeared. That is the proof of the pudding. The evidence produced by my hon. Friend, as the constituency Member for a rural area, should be taken into account by Opposition Members.
Another point that is worth making, but which is often ignored, concerns the point that Labour Members accuse us of removing houses from the council stock and leaving local authorities without the means to do anything about it. But those houses are being sold, albeit at a discount, to realise receipts for the local authorities. District councils should consider using some of the additional money released through sales to reduce council house waiting lists.
I listened closely to the argument of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on new clause 6, which he tabled. Every time I hear him on the subject he argues in favour of council house sales but has reservations about selling them. Perhaps it is a typically Liberal stance to be for something in theory, but frightened of it in practice.
The objects of new clause 6 are rather different from those of new clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). New clause 6 ensures that houses sold in rural areas are not subsequently resold to persons who do not have a direct


interest in the economic wellbeing of the area or other, social, reasons for wishing to live there. The clause aims to ensure that the houses are not subsequently resold as retirement homes, holiday homes, or as houses for those commuting to work in neighbouring areas.
I can see no justification for the new clause in relation to sales of former council houses to retired persons and commuters. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who suggested that it is plainly unfair to make such restrictions.
The position in rural areas is no different from that elsewhere. I have already said that the sale of a council house does not reduce the overall housing stock of an area, and has little or no effect in the short or medium term on the availability of houses to rent. A tenant who does not buy is likely to continue paying rent.
With regard to sales of former council housesas holliday homes, I still believe, as I said in Committee, that the 1980 Act already does all that is necessary to prevent many former council houses in rural areas being sold as holiday or second homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who is silent by dint of his office, tabled an amendment to the original legislation because he foresaw some of the difficulties. His amendment was accepted by the Government, and is now part of the Act. Section 4(6) and section 4(7) of the 1980 Act enable the Secretary of State to make an order permitting authorities to impose pre-emption conditions on sales of houses in rural areas, provided that more than one third of the council houses in the area have been sold, and that an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have been resold as second homes.
During the passage of the 1980 Act, we took the view that the likelihood of substantial numbers of council houses being resold as holiday homes was remote. Our experience since then, which has been backed up by some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends, has not caused us to alter that view. To date not one authority has approached us to suggest that the conditions have been satisfied and to ask for an order to be made under section 4(6). Perhaps that is one of the most powerful arguments against the case made by the hon. Member for Gordon.
I suggest, therefore, that the problems that hon. Members have suggested arise in rural areas are more imagined than real. They have not been substantiated by facts. The new clause is unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his new clause and that he has listened to the hon. Member for Maryhill, who paid him a backhanded compliment, as the Labour party often does, saying that he would support the new clause as it was ineffective. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will realise that that is not necessarily the best reason for proceeding with such a new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon will ask leave to withdraw his new clause. If not, I must ask the House to reject it, and new clause 5.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 203.

Division No. 127]
[7.55 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Ashdown, Paddy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ashton, Joe
Barron, Kevin


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret





Beith, A. J.
Lambie, David


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lamond, James


Bermingham, Gerald
Leighton, Ronald


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bruce, Malcolm
Loyden, Edward


Buchan, Norman
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McGuire, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clay, Robert
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cohen, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McTaggart, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Cowans, Harry
Madden, Max


Craigen, J. M.
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Deakins, Eric
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Michie, William


Dixon, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas, Dick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Neill, Martin


Eadie, Alex
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Ellis, Raymond
Pavitt, Laurie


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Penhaligon, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Flannery, Martin
Robertson, George


Forrester, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Foster, Derek
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Freud, Clement
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Gourlay, Harry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'k"ds E)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Home Robertson, John
Tinn, James


Howells, Geraint
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
White, James


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wilson, Gordon


Johnston, Russell



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. James Wallace.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Bryan, Sir Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, William
Butcher, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John (N Lutcn)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, W. S.






Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cockeram, Eric
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Conway, Derek
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Couchman, James
Luce, Richard


Cranbome, Viscount
Lyell, Nicholas


Crouch, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Macfarlane, Neil


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John


Dicks, T.
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maclean, David John.


Dover, Denshore
McQuarrie, Albert


Dunn, Robert
Major, John


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Dykes, Hugh
Malone, Gerald


Evennett, David
Maples, John


Eyre, Reginald
Marland, Paul


Fallon, Michael
Marlow, Antony


Favell, Anthony
Mates, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maude, Francis


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mellor, David


Freeman, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Galley, Roy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Sir Hector


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Ground, Patrick
Neale, Gerrard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Osborn, Sir John


Harvey, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawksley, Warren
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powley, John


Henderson, Barry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hickmet, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Renton, Tim


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rost, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jessel, Toby
Spence, John


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Key, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Knowles, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Knox, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lang, Ian
Walden, George


Latham, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth





Watson, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler, John



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

DWELLING HOUSE LET AS SEPARATE DWELLINGS

'After subsection 1 of section 10 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted—
(1A) For the avoidance of doubt, where a dwellinghouse owned by one of the landlords mentioned in subsection (2) below is let to two or more tenants, each of whom has exclusive use of part of that dwellinghouse and shares the remaining part or parts with the other tenant or tenants, each of those tenants shall be held to be occupying "a dwellinghouse let as a separate dwelling" for the purposes of subsection (1) above.".'. —[Mr. Craigen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is really a probing debate. Had the Minister met the conditions of the 21-day rule which he was proposing in respect of landlords' response in the consultation document, we would not be debating this new clause now. As the Minister knows, I wrote to him during the recess, asking for his comments on the representations which had been put to him last month by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless in respect of the situation facing those with shared tenancies. The council is concerned that a situation may have arisen where a shared tenancy in a public sector dwelling would not be secure because it would not fulfil one of the three criteria set out in the original legislation.
As I understand it from the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, formal opinion of counsel has been obtained in respect of Edinburgh council to the effect that if a district council or housing association lets a flat to two or more persons on a sharing basis there can be no secure tenancy. It may be that the Minister will be able to clarify this matter. He has had these representations from the Scottish council. I wrote to him in advance of today's debate and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Hugh Brown: The Minister will probably agree the no organisation that makes representations to Government attracts more sympathy than the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. That genuine and sincere organisation has always cared for the problems associated with single people, and increasingly such problems affect a larger proportion of the population. More and more young people now leave home and form new relationships, but it is slightly misleading to think that all the single homeless have problems.
In our attempt to use a shorthand phrase, there is a danger that we are unclear about which groups are affected. I merely ask the Minister to show some sympathy for this problem, which should appeal to his philosophy on the extension of tenants' rights.
I do not seek to create difficulties for housing authorities, but several problems spring to mind. There is a need to modernise and rehabilitate multi-storey flats. The Minister will probably be aware of the Red road flats in Glasgow, the Westercommon flats owned by the SSHA in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for


Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and the sale of Martello Towers in Edinburgh. Those examples suggest that we should consider how we can better use multi-storey blocks. Perhaps in future such accommodation can be shared by several young people, students or whoever. We should at least pay attention to a problem that may well develop.
We are all in favour of releasing as many people as possible from mental hospitals, and I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the good work done by some authorities that have introduced group tenancies. However, that presents problems for the DHSS as no one person holds the tenancy.
There is common agreement in the House that such groups should be treated as sympathetically as possible. We should certainly consider whether those involved in group tenancies have individual rights, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, counsel opinion seems to be that they do not.
Another group that springs to mind, which unfortunately does not attract the concern of the public, is offenders who are being resettled. There is at least some justification for demonstrating to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless that we are aware of the problem. Hopefully, we can approach this matter in a genuine, non-partisan manner. Such problems are real and we should show some sympathy and understanding.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) for the way in which he made his remarks. I shall deal with some of those points later.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has not yet received a reply to his letter, but he must appreciate that over the holiday period the impeccable timing of my Department is not quite as tight as it normally is.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about certain aspects of the existing law and reflected the concern of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. In particular, he was concerned about security of tenure as it relates to shared tenancies.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not able to provide an authoritative interpretation of statute, because that is a matter for the courts. it may, however, assist him and the House if I outline my view of the present position.
Shared tenancies typically involve the granting of a tenancy to a group of people — usually unrelated —occupying a single house. Normally, tenants have a bedroom of their own and share communal living accommodation. In general, that is standard and typical.
Such shared tenancies can be constituted in three different ways—first, through a head tenancy, where one of the group is the tenant and the others have the status of lodgers or sub-tenants; secondly, through a joint and several tenancy, where all members of the group are joint tenants; and, thirdly, through group tenancies where all members of the group have individual tenancies.
8.15 pm
The position with regard to security of tenure is relatively straightforward in relation to the first two ways of constituting a shared tenancy. In the case of a head tenancy, the one tenant has security of tenure and enjoys all the other rights that comprise the tenants' charter, and

the other members of the group, in common with other lodgers or sub-tenants, do not enjoy any of the tenants' charter rights.
In the case of a joint and several tenancy, each and every member of the group is a secure tenant in the same way that a husband and wife who are joint tenants both have security of tenure. Those two categories are relatively straightforward.
Where, however, the shared tenancy is constituted by several persons, each of whom has an individual tenancy, I admit that the position is not quite so clear. My advice is that none of the tenants has security of tenure, as none of them satisfies one of the necessary conditions for a tenancy to be a secure tenancy—that the tenancy must be a tenancy of a dwelling house which is let as a separate dwelling. This is true even where sharing tenants have exclusive use of one bedroom, as that bedroom is not itself let as a separate dwelling. Rather, it is let as a dwelling in conjunction with the shared use of the other communal facilities in the house.
Our view, therefore, is that tenants who occupy shared accommodation on the basis of an individual tenancy do not have security of tenure. Moreover, I consider that to give them such security in the absence of a much more thorough review of the role and status of such tenancies could cause more problems than it would solve. That is something of which we should be careful. It could, for example, lead to a situation where all the tenants have a right to buy all or part of the house irrespective of the wishes of the other members of the group. That would cause great problems.
The granting of security of tenure to such tenants could also undermine current attempts by some authorities to provide short-term accommodation in shared tenancies for special groups. The three groups that I intended to mention are the same as those referred to by the hon. Member for Provan—the single homeless, the mentally handicapped and ex-offenders.
This is something of which we should all be cautious. To create security of tenure could undermine some of the important attempts to give such people short-term accommodation, which by its nature must require no security of tenure. After all, such accommodation is usually provided on a short-term basis in an effort to assist the person in question establish or re-establish himself within the community, and it is essential to the success of such schemes that authorities retain control over who occupies the accommodation available and how long they remain there.
I appreciate that uncertainty exists in this area, but I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maryhill is a solution.

Mr. Hugh Brown: My understanding is that the Scottish Council for Single Homeless was concerned about the right to a house, not the right to buy. I know that security of tenure under the Act gives the right to buy, but that was not the concern of the council. It was pressing for some security to be given to some of the individuals involved in these group tenancies, for example, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.

Mr. Ancram: I appreciate that. The new clause was framed in this way because the Bill involves security of tenure and the right to buy. When security of tenure is created, one of the benefits that it brings is the right to buy.


Bearing in mind what I said earlier, great problems and difficulties could be caused for the type of person whom the hon. Member for Provan is seeking to help. I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Craigen: I note what the Minister said. We are not dealing with a simple matter. From what the Minister said, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless has cause for concern. It appears that the right to buy is cutting across the right to a secure tenancy, as we heard from the Minister's response.
I accept the Minister's apology for the delayed correspondence. I teased him about the timing of his reply and he will recall my remark about the 21-day rule. He assured me that Christmas and the new year came within the 21-day period, so some working days were available to complete the reply that I requested. It would be useful to know whether the Minister will discuss the issue with the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. I am sure that the council does not wish matters to remain as they are. If I received such an assurance, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Ancram: I shall try, in a letter to the hon. Gentleman, to deal with some of the points that he has raised.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

RIGHT TO HAVE REPAIRS CARRIED OUT

'After Section 17 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following words—
17B. It shall be the right of a tenant under a secure tenancy to have repairs to the dwelling house carried out under procedures agreed by each landlord and its tenants.".'.—[Mr. Craigen.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall empower landlords to limit the proportion or cash value of the landlords' housing repairs budget paid out under the scheme.'.
No. 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations under this section shall provide that, the landlord shall within twelve months of the commencement of this Act, and in consultation with its tenants, draw up a right to repair programme which will:

(a) list those repairs for which the landlord is responsible; and
(b) prioritise those repairs and state the time periods within which the landlord undertakes to carry out these repairs; and
(c) establish a method for resolving any disputes arising under the programme
The landlord shall publish details of the arrangements which it makes under this section and ensure that a copy is made available to every tenant.
No. 8, in clause 3, page 3, line 45, at end insert—
'(c) shall provide that repairs within the scheme shall be classified according to their urgency and be assigned as emergency, essential or routine, with action on each to be undertaken accordingly by the landlord within an appropriate period to be specified in the regulations.'.

Mr. Craigen: We made it clear in Committee that we are in favour of a right to have repairs carried out. There is no doubt in my mind that those hon. Members who have public sector housing within their constituencies accept that genuine complaints and dissatisfaction exist about the repairs service. There is a need to strengthen cyclical and planned maintenance in the public sector. It is important that we achieve improved management of our housing stock, but that involves increased resources to housing authorities to enable them to carry out their responsibilities. Where landlords have responsibilities for repairs, it is essential that they carry them out.
The Minister did not fully answer in Committee the question about the extent of planned maintenance programmes in Scotland. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that a university research project is examining local authority housing repairs. If the Minister would speak to some tenants—I do not encourage him to go into public houses—he would learn more than the university researchers. I see that he is nodding. It is important for him to learn on the spot about the problems that tenants face and not rely too heavily on academic research.
I am worried about the tremendous cutbacks in resources in real terms to Scottish housing authorities since the Government came to office. Since 1979 the figure involved in real terms is £125 million. The cuts put a tremendous strain upon the maintenance and repair budgets of our housing authorities, and it is exceedingly difficult for many to carry out their proper responsibilities.
I do not intend to dwell at length on some of the major issues. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the housing authorities to eradicate the problems of dampness, to tackle asbestos stripping and removal and the structural problems in industrialised buildings that were put up in the 1950s and 1960s. Those factors are part and parcel of inadequate funding faced by local authorities in carrying out their legal obligations as public sector landlords.
When dealing with new clause 2 in Committee, we faced the problem of considering enabling legislation. It was based on reports that the Government were to receive at the end of last year—a consultation document called "A Right to Repair". The closing date for the submission of opinions was 31 December. The consultation document was not circulated as widely as it should have been.
I said in Committee that Glasgow district council did not receive a copy of the document until the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gave it a copy. The closing date for responses from COSLA members was the end of November, which telescoped the procedure. The Minister has suffered from not having a sufficient background in local government affairs. Had he known more about the way in which local authorities operate when submitting views, he would have realised that they have a cycle of meetings. If one meeting is missed, a month must elapse before a further meeting can take place, but perhaps he expected councils to have special meetings to comment on such an important consultation paper.
Will the Minister give a preliminary report on the response that he has received? Few people have had a good word to say about the consultation paper. If the scheme is enacted, many tenants, when they look at the close print, will consider that they have been sold a pup. That is why it is important to enshrine in statute the right for repairs


to be carried out rather than be short-changed by accepting the present right-to-repair scheme that the Government embodied in their consultation paper.
I shall not detain the House by dwelling for very long on some of the pertinent points which were raised in Committee about the way in which effective repairs should be performed. We were worried that the scheme might exclude the elderly and people on low incomes. Such people would be troubled by having to pay for repairs and waiting to be reimbursed. We were worried because full reimbursement might not take place and that there may be a sliding scale from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent.
8.30 pm
The Government argue that tendering is good practice. I am surprised that the consultation document did not say that tendering was expected for minor repairs. In the building industry it is elementary to seek estimates for repairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is as busy as ever. He gave me a list of housing authorities and their supplies and appliances. The mind boggles at the number of items that have to be kept in store. Will local authorities operate a type of Unipart service? Will they have to publish prices for items such as sinks or window frames so that others who put in tenders have that knowledge? Many practical considerations are involved.
The need for insurance cover is an alarming prospect for tenants who opt for do-it-yourself repairs. In Committee we discussed health and safety regulations which we believe to be important. It is strange that a Conservative Minister should in Committee suggest that if repairs are not carried out tenants should withhold their rents. It is strange that the Minister should reiterate that.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) will recollect that he asked me about common law rights. I told him about tenants' rights under the common law. If I had failed to do that he would have accused me of not having given the whole picture. It is strange that he should now accuse me of trying to incite tenants.

Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to enlighten me in response to my earlier questions. Towards the end of the Committee stage and in response to one of my hon. Friends the Minister used what for a Tory is emotive language. It is interesting that a Conservative should tell tenants to withhold their rents.

Mr. Maxton: The problem is that poorer tenants cannot take part in the scheme. Tenants on housing benefit will be unable to exercise their common law right to withhold rent if repairs are not carried out because the DHSS will refuse to agree to that.

Mr. Craigen: I do not wish to take the debate outwith its scope, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxon) is correct. By altering housing benefits legislation the Government will make many tenants worse off, but we shall have the opportunity to debate that important matter on another occasion.
We must encourage local authorities and other housing authorities to improve their planned maintenance and cyclical repair arrangements. The Government are falling down by the measures that they are taking and the funding that they are denying housing authorities for repairs.
For emergency, essential and routine repairs the Government should rely upon an improved delivery

service by housing authorities which, as landlords, are legally responsible. The Minister may contradict me when discussing the consultation document, but problems arise whether repairs are left to do-it-yourself Indians or fly-by-night cowboys.
The Committee discussed common repair schemes, but inevitably problems will arise in relation to gas, electricity, rewiring and dry or wet rot if the Government are not careful in the way that they engineer the right-to-repair scheme.
Our greatest worry is that parts of public sector housing are slithering into slumdom. The evidence is available. The Minister shakes his head, but he does not see the communities that Opposition Members see. The Minister denies it, but he is wrong. The facts are indisputable. Local authorities are experiencing more and more problems in keeping housing stocks in proper order. That used to be true of the private sector. I acknowledge that house improvement grants have helped, but the Minister has decided to cut and run on that issue. The evidence is of a deterioration in public sector housing stock. It is essential to establish a right to repair by the landlord and a proper repair delivery service.

Mr. Henderson: My impression is that the House agrees that repairs are not always done as well as they might be done. If the standards of the better local authorities were applied universally we should probably not have to discuss this legislation today. Unfortunately there are substantial variations in the quality of repairs and the way in which they are carried out. I shall not pursue any political guesstimates about which local authorities are best at handling repairs. The general desire in the House is to provide tenants with the right of repair. The differences come to light in the way it is carried out and in the way it affects different people.
In Committee and again tonight, Opposition Members have said that certain categories of people — they instanced poorer people—might not benefit from some ways in which the right to repair might be carried out. Surely that is not a good argument against proceeding with the right to repair, if sensible schemes can be devised.

Mr. Maxton: Why?

Mr. Henderson: If many people benefit from it, the fact that not every person benefits is not an argument in itself. There is no reason why we should not try to meet all the problems. Indeed, poorer tenants should get their repairs done anyway. If some of the pressure on local authority maintenance departments is reduced by the right to repair scheme, it is more likely that the tenant who wants repairs done by the local authority will find that the local authority provides that service more effectively.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Gentleman is wiser than I thought. He was a member of the Committee with me, and I thought that he had grasped the whole point of his Government's consultation document better than he apparently has. We said that the better-off tenant who had the money would be able to get the repairs done, but that the majority of tenants are on housing benefit and would have difficulty in getting repairs done.

Mr. Henderson: I do not understand what is puzzling the hon. Gentleman. At present tenants should have their repairs carried out. If it is convenient and sensible for the tenant to arrange his own repairs, at no cost to himself, that


is surely a good thing. If that releases resources in the local authority to provide a better service for all tenants, that is surely a good thing.
Reference was made in a pejorative way to fly-by-night operators coming in. Certainly no one would want to encourage such operators in the real meaning of the word, but that does not mean that individuals or small firms cannot provide a competent and adequate service. If there is a retired joiner living in the area who can carry out minor repairs, it would be of great benefit to him, as well as to other people, for him to do those repairs. That would avoid involving the great bureaucratic process. Opposition Members may describe that joiner as a fly-by-night operator, but I would regard him as providing a useful service.

Mr. Dewar: It is called the black economy.

Mr. Henderson: Not necessarily. He may pay his taxes, just as I am sure the hon. Gentleman pays his taxes, although the hon. Gentleman with his legal experience may be rather better at avoiding his tax than the poor old chap who is providing a service for his neighbour.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I evade my taxes.

Mr. Henderson: I did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman evaded his tax. He, as a lawyer, will realise that I have been very careful in making no such inference about him.
It is important to get the right to repair right. We all know that it will not be easy to get a comprehensive scheme absolutely right first time. It is therefore all the more important that at each stage of the evolution of my hon. Friend's scheme he consults as widely as possible, including the House, so as to get it right. I would find it most acceptable, perhaps on an Opposition day, at any rate at some point, to have an opportunity to debate the scheme either on the Floor of the House or in the Grand Committee, before an order is placed in the House. That will help hon. Members and will help to produce a scheme that will provide not only the right to repair that we want tenants to have, but will ensure that it defies the Jeremiahs of the Opposition who do not appreciate that a competent Government can produce schemes to meet difficult circumstances.

Mr. Bruce: I support the right-to-repair principle, but I wish to speak specifically to amendment No. 4, standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal party, myself and my Liberal and Social Democratic colleagues. I accept that the amendment has been included in this group of amendments because the thrust of its argument is similar. The matter was discussed thoroughly in Committee, but it was not satisfactorily resolved. That is why my colleagues on Second Reading tabled an instruction, which regrettably was ruled out of order, that increased funds should be made available to cover such a scheme. The fact that the Government propose that this scheme, of which we still do not have full details, is to come out of existing local authority budgets — which, as we all know, are severely constrained—has encouraged me to table the amendment, which would enable local authorities to protect their own repairs policy and to ensure that the less

privileged tenants in local authority housing do not suffer disadvantage as a result of the introduction of a scheme that gives tenants rights to repair.

Mr. Henderson: Surely with a scheme of this kind no one will be disadvantaged, in the sense that no existing rights are taken away?

Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the argument, he may get my point. If there is a fixed amount of money and a new scheme is introduced, particularly if that scheme proves to be successful and popular, it means that the tenants who take advantage of the scheme effectively reduce the amount of money that is available to the local authority to carry out repairs under other schemes — for example, a sensible planned budgeted maintenance on a section of its own housing stock, which many good local authorities rightly regard as the basis of good housing management. The fact that its budget has been distorted by the requirement to carry out repairs could cause considerable difficulties, both in budgeting and planned maintenance programmes. That is my colleagues' first concern about the likely effect of the scheme — should the scheme be effective, and we assume that the Government intend to bring forward a scheme which they believe will be popular and widely taken up.
That brings me to my second point. For tenants who are in a position to take advantage of such a scheme, clearly the scheme is a good one, but, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) pointed out, what about those tenants who are on low incomes or on social security benefit, who are simply not able to fund, even for a short time, the cost of such repairs? If they are told by their local authority, "We are unable to carry out your repair because our budget has been exhausted by the tenants' right to carry out repairs scheme", those people will be at a considerable disadvantage, and they will have to wait even longer for repairs to be carried out than they would otherwise.

Mr. Ancram: Why?

Mr. Bruce: Because the money would have been committed to those tenants who have taken advantage of the scheme that the Government seek to introduce. It is a simple point that Opposition Members seem to have no difficulty in grasping, although Conservative Members seem to find it very abstruse.
I said in Committee that I do not object in principle to a scheme such as the Government propose, but I am concerned that the Government have produced no safeguards for either local authorities that wish to carry out planned maintenance programmes or for tenants on low incomes who cannot take advantage of the scheme. It is therefore reasonable to allow local authorities to limit the proportion of their budget that would have to be committed to such a scheme so that they can plan to use the remainder of their budget to meet the requirements of tenants who want repairs to be carried out, specifically to be paid for by the council, and to carry out their own planned programmes.
That recognises that good housing management requires budgeting. The Government are not allowing those councils to plan but are requiring them to run the risk of a system that is not controlled but is at the whim of individual tenants. If that becomes the only system, or the bulk of the system, the whole programme of maintenance


will be severely disrupted. As requests that the Minister should carry out a pilot scheme have been refused, I hope that he will publish a more detailed draft scheme before laying orders before the House.
Local authorities should have the right to limit the proportion of their budgets that are allocated to the scheme, at least until it is seen how the scheme works, so as to protect their plans and to protect those tenants who will not be able to benefit from the scheme, as so far outlined, because they will be unable to afford to do so.
I will not detain the House longer because I am sure that the thrust of my argument is clear to, and is accepted by, Opposition Members, who perhaps have less difficulty then some Conservatives in understanding how councils manage their housing budgets.

Mr. Bill Walker: The way in which the scheme will affect people on low incomes should receive the careful attention of the House. In a caring society, people living in council properties enjoying social security benefit—properly enjoying such benefit; I am not arguing against that—and who are thereby obtaining relief on their rates and rent, may find, in view of the discretion that exist in this sphere, that the social security departments are funding these repair activities, and I would not object to that. After all, social security is an avenue of housing revenue. Going into council rent coffers are substantial sums especially when over 50 per cent. of tenants are enjoying benefit. If that were extended to repairs, councils and tenants could benefit substantially.

Mr. Hugh Brown: A number of hon. Members have had consultations during the Christmas recess on some of the issues that arise out of the subject under discussion, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates that we wish to make a constructive contribution to the debate, though it is a shame that we are constrained by the time factor. We are discussing an important part of the Bill.
Although the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was a member of the Committee, he was either ill or out of the country at the time; I will only say that he was missed from the Committee. It is clear, possibly because of his absence on those occasions, that he does not understand the position. Perhaps the Minister will gently remind him that there is no question of the DHSS being involved in the matter. I understood the Minister to give an indication in Committee that contractors would have to wait until the housing authority paid the bill, so ensuring that nobody was out of pocket. A statement to that effect might clear up some of the misconceptions of various organisations.
The proposed new clause is our alternative strategy, so to speak, to what the Government propose, and it comes straight from the Labour party manifesto, unlike some of the other proposals that we have been discussing. It is marvellous to be able to speak without official responsibility for my statements; I confess that I did not think that the way in which we would put into effect the principle of giving a right of repair had been well thought out. "Right of repair" is a nice-sounding phrase, but while I am in favour of the principle, I am more concerned to gee up some housing authorities that should be performing better in terms of repairs. There is general recognition of the fact that the service of repairs for most council tenants in Scotland, irrespective of who runs the authority, has not been good, and hence our concern.
As a result of the consultations that I had, I persuaded a community council in Easterhouse to sponsor a seminar. I did not try to influence that gathering. I simply supplied information so as to focus minds on the subject about which comment was invited in the consultation paper. I made no effort to sell or oppose the scheme. About 30 delegates were present, representing a variety of organisations, and they were unanimously opposed to the whole concept. If that sounds depressing, perhaps it means that more education should be given on the subject.
The representatives came from various organisations, including the local Communist party and street committees. I discovered that there was acceptance of the advice of the Scottish tenants' organisations, although it was wrong on perhaps six points out of eight. I am not against the Scottish tenants' organisations — local authorities must have somebody with whom to discuss matters—but there has been a failure on the part of the Scottish Office to educate people into understanding some of the thoughts behind the scheme.
As I said in Committee, I do not know where the idea of the scheme originated. There had not been a great demand by any local organisations for it, so how the Government came to think it up escapes me. That is why, when representations were made by the various organisations to which I have referred, there was unanimous opposition to the idea. Although Glasgow district council, in the evidence that it submitted on the document, did not come out and say that it opposed it, that evidence was so full of criticism that it was obviously not a popular concept.
I am sure that the Minister will take on board the spirit in which we are discussing this issue. I accepted his assurance that before the regulations were drawn up, opportunity would be found, through the usual channels, to discuss the matter. If the Government are determined to go ahead with the proposal, they should at least provide opportunity to enable us to discuss the final form of the scheme in the light of all the opposition that has been forthcoming. It is clear that some of the comments that have been made have come from people who either do not understand what is proposed or are deliberately misinterpreting the scheme.
I understood the Minister to say in Committee that nobody would be out of pocket unless he chose that course, and that if it was a do-it-yourself job, people would be able to buy materials. If someone went through all, the procedures as outlined and then got the contractor to do the job, the payment would be made by the authority within a certain specific time, so that the tenant would not be out of pocket. I am either right or wrong about that, and the Minister will tell me.

Mr. Ancram: The basic principle is correct. The hon. Gentleman will know that I said that a tenant would be able to enhance the type of repair being done if he wished to pay for it out of his own pocket. Those would be the circumstances in which they would not receive the whole grant.

Mr. Brown: I accept that. There is a clear implication that if a tenant wants to do something extra, that is his responsibility and the Minister is right to make that qualification, which I understand. The basic principle is that no one should be out of pocket. I am not arguing for the scheme, but saying that there is no point in our


repeating misconceptions that people have that the poor person or somebody on social security will not be able to take advantage of the scheme. That should not arise. It is not an argument for the scheme but a point of clarification.

9 pm

Mr. Dewar: I was not on the Committee for this debate, as I served on it for only a short time. The point about people of restricted means was that they were worried about how they would meet the contractor's bill while they were waiting for the local authority to come across with the money. That worry may be met, but I am curious as to the answer.

Mr. Brown: I am not the Minister.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member is doing all right.

Mr. Brown: I at least pay attention to what the Minister says, and if I criticise a scheme I know what it is. If there is someone on social security who wants a job done, my understanding is that the contractor will need to take on board, just as he would with anybody else, the fact that he might have to wait for six weeks for the bill to be paid.
I feel a little resentful at times about my inability to convince even the Scottish tenants' organisations. I tell them that we have raised a matter, but they now have a point in the submission that is wrong. I do not understand whether this falls into the category of people deliberately not wanting to understand the scheme. The scheme is not popular. It may be that with education and a bit of advice people might understand it better.
I give the Minister a word of warning. The real problem that emerged from an area such as Easterhouse was the concern about jobs in the direct labour organisation. This is not a partisan point. That department has gone down from about 6,000 people to about 4,000, and apprehension was expressed that if too many private or do-it-yourself jobs were done that could have a serious effect on the viability of a department that is now operating under an Act that imposes conditions on it. I am not arguing for or against, but pointing that that was a real concern and one that the Minister will have to take on board because it is part of the opposition generated to the scheme. I do not think that the scheme will make much difference, but I hope that there will be further opportunity to discuss it if the Government go ahead.

Mr. Wilson: It is difficult for those of us who did not serve on the Committee to be able to discuss schemes that have not been properly brought to our attention. That is rather like putting the legislative cart before the horse. The Government should have issued a consultative document before legislation was introduced, obtained comment on it and then built that comment into the Bill so that all those who have participated in the process would know exactly what the Government had in mind and whether the scheme stood any chance of success.
I have found that the standard of repair work in my area has worsened in the past year or so. There is probably no single cause for discontent among council tenants worse than waiting for repairs to be carried out. That is particularly so if they are promised repairs by housing inspectors but when representatives of the DLO come

along they are told that the DLO will repair some things but not others, which the tenants had thought that the housing inspector had passed for maintenance.
I spoke earlier about tenants being treated like pawns but there is probably even greater frustration among tenants who know that things are wrong with their houses—draughts come whistling through windows that are broken, doors may be insecure for days if not weeks—and there is insecurity among the tenants who have to put up with such conditions.
There has been silence on this today, but as far as I can tell from constituency correspondence there has been a shortage of fitments. Repairs are promised, but it is suggested that materials are out of stock. That excuse seems to have been more prevalent in the past year or so than previously, although I am sure that there will always be a problem if there is a sudden run on a particular fitment which must be put into a house. Local authority housing departments need always to improve management, coordination and liaison so that when repairs must be done they are done promptly and to a reasonable standard of workmanship.
If that criticism of shortages exists, we must address our minds to the scheme that the Government might have in mind. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) seemed to see no problem for the poorer tenants who might have difficulty in financing repairs until money is available from the housing departments. No assumption can be made that if, because of the requirements of bureaucracy or otherwise, a voucher or receipt is passed into the housing authority a payment will be made immediately so that the tradesman is paid off. It may take weeks, if not months, for that to happen.

Mr. Ancram: Six weeks.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad that the Under-Secretary has told me. If a person is on supplementary benefit, six weeks can be a long time. The tradesman must be persuaded to accept credit.

Mr. James Hamilton: That is the point. The hon. Member is right on the ball.

Mr. Wilson: I am glad to hear that. In some cases, there may be a difficulty in persuading tradesmen to accept small jobs when payments are likely to be deferred for a considerable period.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East—I follow up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—that a problem could occur if the scheme were an outrageous success. I am not in a position to determine whether that is likely. If it were a success, there could be a rush to carry out repairs which had been accumulating over weeks, if not months. In that case, there would be a run on local authority budgets set aside for housing repairs. Local authorities are required by central Government to budget. They do not receive any additional money to meet repairs coming out of sequence, which can occur.
We have just had an example of such a rush. The Government's scheme on the 90 per cent. grants for improvement was so successful that the amounts being expended increased to not tens but hundreds of millions of pounds. That occurred to such an extent that the Government became alarmed and had to cut the grants to


50 per cent., and a freeze was put on. The scheme could work on a much smaller scale. If it proves successful, repairs will be carried out.
What happens to the remainder of tenants who might in normal circumstances want to have their houses repaired? Money will not be available and they will have to wait, even though some of the anticipated repairs might be more urgent than others carried out under the Government's scheme.
I followed the suggestion by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the DHSS advancing money.

Mr. Bill Walker: No.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the DHSS will not advance any money. I should have thought that it would be most unlikely that the DHSS would accept any local government obligations or lend money for a period. That could leave in difficulty tenants who are on supplementary benefit. Many of the properties that tenants occupy are not in a good state of repair and are running down. There is a question mark over the scheme.
New clause 14 is simple. It says:
It shall be the right of a tenant under a secure tenancy to have repairs to the dwelling house carried out".
That first part of the new clause is a contractual right that tenants already enjoy under the terms of their lease from the local authority. The new clause continues:
under procedures agreed by each landlord and its tenants.
I am not sure what the new clause adds up to. The caveat in amendment No. 4 suggests that there should be a limit on the amount of funds available under the scheme to local authorities so that there is some cash left over for other tenants who wish to go through the usual procedure of having repairs to their houses carried out by their landlords. That is a common law right. I am not sure that the drafting of amendment No. 4 is sufficient to deal with the problem. However, that should not provide the Government with an excuse. If they find that there is a point to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Gordon, they should reword the amendment appropriately.
I am dissatisfied with the details of the scheme that have been made available to us. It is one of those ghastly examples of amateurish legislation. The Government have jumped into something but have not worked out exactly what they intend to do.

Mr. Maxton: I am pleased that we are debating an issue which affects a large majority of council house tenants rather than something such as the sale of council houses, which is of concern to a small minority. Repairs are the second most common problem which are brought to my surgery. The most common problem is house transfers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) tells me that earlier today he heard me speak for the first time in four and a half years. I wish that he had not come here to hear me a second time.
The third most common problem that arises in my surgery is one to which Conservative Members never address themselves. Far worse than the problem of repairs to council houses is that of people who live in private rented property. It is always much more difficult to tackle those problems than to approach the local council. As often as not, I have to get the environmental health

department to come in and put an order on the landlord if those repairs are to be done. That is not necessary with local authorities. Perhaps Conservative Members should think a little more about private landlords and a little less about attacking local authorities and council house tenants.
I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). I was not a member of the Committee and he clarified for me many of the things that have worried me about the scheme. One of the reactions that we are getting from community councils such as those which I have consulted in my constituency, tenants' organisations and other organisations that represent council house tenants is generated by the fact that there is complete distrust of the Government's housing policy. Even if such people suspect that there is something in the Government's scheme, their reaction, knowing what the Government have done to them through housing policy in the past four and a half years, is to say that if the present Government are putting something forward, it must be wrong. I can understand that reaction. My hon. Friend the Member for Provan is right to say that tenants will not have to pay for repairs. Local authorities will have to bear the cost of them within six weeks. I think that presumes that it is an undisputed repair—in other words, that the local authority, having got the repair done, agrees it was necessary and that the work done is up to the standard required. If there is a dispute about it, presumably it could take considerably longer than six weeks before payment is made.
9.15 pm
I know that my hon. Friend's reaction will be that it is not the tenant who has to wait for his money, but the builder. How many building companies — some hon. Members opposite used to be in the building business themselves—are prepared to wait on an indefinite basis to get their money? Building companies have cash flow problems. A smaller company particularly can readily go out of business if it does a fairly major repair for a tenant which comes into dispute and drags on, because the company cannot continue to operate if it does not have the necessary cash. Hon. Members opposite who have been in business will appreciate that point.

Mr. Henderson: It is a judgment for the business man.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member says that it is a judgment for the business man, but then one comes back to the basic objection. In the case of the poor tenant who cannot afford to pay anything to the builder, the builder, knowing that he will have to wait six weeks to be paid, will make the judgment that he will not carry out the repair because there is no guarantee that he will get his money within a reasonable time. To the tenant who has the money, the builder will say, "You pay me and claim it back."

Mr. Hugh Brown: I was merely suggesting that some of these misconceptions were clarified in Committee. That is why I was perturbed, because even the Scottish Tenants' Association, in spite of these corrections having been made, continues in the same way.

Mr. Maxton: I think that we all know which party dominates that organisation, and sometimes we all have our doubts about it. The fact is that we do represent people, though I accept that they should have taken the


points and got them right. As I said earlier, there is suspicion of the Government's housing policy. Builders might make judgments that result in a fallback to exactly the same position as previously.
A further problem with the scheme is the inability under the proposals for the local authorities to make planned work schedules as to what they going to do, which areas they will tackle for major repairs, how they will tackle emergency repairs and how they will lead through and carry out minor repairs. That seems to be the central argument against what is essentially a haphazard way of doing repairs. Glasgow has undoubtedly — and quite rightly—been one of the district councils most criticised for its repairs, but over the past two or three years it has at long last begun to put proper planning and managerial schemes into operation. At the point where Glasgow is now beginning to get it right and to get schemes worked out, it is hit by the Government in two ways. First, it is hit financially. Glasgow is finding it very difficult to carry out repairs because it does not have the money to do so, even though it would wish to do so and even though it has worked out schemes.
The second point arises from the introduction of this scheme. Tenants from a specific area—this is likely to be on an area basis at first, because people copy one another—will get repairs done, money will have to be put in, and then it will be found that the local authority has insufficient money to continue with the repairs, which will hit the poorer tenants in areas like Castlemilk road and Drumchapel and Easterhouse.

Mr. Hirst: If the problem of repairs in Glasgow is so pressing, how can the hon. Member reconcile it with the decision taken by his colleagues in the city of Glasgow Labour party who the other day voted not to implement any rent increase?

Mr. Maxton: That has nothing whatever to do with it. Glasgow district council is finally trying to tackle the problem, but it will not be able to do so properly because of the Government's proposals. Local authorities need a great injection of Government money to ensure that there are proper repair schemes.

Mr. Hugh Brown: And direct works departments.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. They, too, will be threatened. Moreover, the direct works department in Glasgow has in the past been one of the largest trainers of building trade apprentices. That function, too, will be threatened.
There is clearly a common concern about the fact that repairs are not always properly carried out, but there is a major difference of opinion about how the problem should be tackled. The Conservatives, as usual, wish to go for free enterprise at the expense of public enterprise but to the benefit of their friends in private industry.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I heard someone say "Oh, no!" as I rose to speak, but I am as entitled as anyone else to contribute to the debate. I am all for local authority tenants having the right to repairs, but the Government must face many responsibilities in this context.
Many houses in my constituency were built as a result of the encouragement given to Glasgow district council

and the old Glasgow corporation by various Governments since 1945. The designs of some of them are disastrous, but the blame cannot be laid entirely at the door of the local authority. When the corridor-type maisonette housing in my constituency was first built it was extremely popular, but once people spent a winter in it they found that dampness literally ran down the walls. Parents now tell me that their young children are suffering from bronchitis and asthma, so something must be done. It is desperately difficult in a city such as Glasgow to transfer people to the areas to which they wish to go, and the landlord has an obligation to ensure that the houses are kept dry.
By all means there should be a right to repairs, but does that mean that tenants can demand that the work carried out on their maisonettes or Bison flats in Springburn should completely eradicate the dampness? If that is not the case, the Minister is saying that tenants in those homes do not have the same rights as those in conventionally built houses. If the tenants have that right, however, it is unfair to leave the burden entirely with the landlord, either Glasgow district council or the Scottish Special Housing Association.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that throughout Glasgow and the west of Scotland many people are suffering from chest complaints and very bad health due to damp housing conditions. I hope he will tell us how he will eradicate the problem.
There are in my constituency multi-storey flats 32 storeys high. A simple thing like the repair of a window means that a squad of men have to get a cradle up the side of the wall before they can do the repair. I represent the highest part of Glasgow. If there is a strong wind, no work can be done. With the help of the Government, the local authority must consider the type of material that windows are made of so that they will withstand the inclement weather that we get in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) was different from the others in that it dealt with aspects of housing not covered in the new clause. The hon. Member referred to problems in certain houses in his constituency, and, indeed, in mine, which require capital expenditure. Bids have been made to the Scottish Office, and the provisional allocations that have been made have taken account of them. But the hon. Gentleman has come here today after his council has announced that it will not increase council house rents, although it knows that the likely result will be that the capital available to it will probably be reduced to pay the equivalent of the amount it transfers to its rate fund contribution. Therefore, perhaps the hon. Member should aim his remarks more to his councillors in Glasgow district council than to me.

Mr. Martin: Surely the Minister has missed the point I have made, that neither Glasgow district council nor its predecessor, the corporation, was entirely responsible for the non-conventional housing that was built in Glasgow. Government after Government, including Labour Governments, told local authorities such as Glasgow, who were in desperate straits in regard to housing, that if they did not build multi-storey flats and maisonettes they would not get the grants they needed to build houses. The Minister must face the responsibility. It is not a question of a local authority not putting up rents. The Government must consider the problems that they have caused for tenants in this type of accommodation.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure I would be out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I were to go much further down that road, which is beyond the remit of the new clause and the amendments.
When he began his speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) was constructive and I was prepared to treat his speech as we had treated all contributions on this part of the Bill in Committee —on the basis of consultation, because constructive ideas were put forward in Committee. Those consultations are all being taken account of in reaching a draft scheme.
I was saddened by the end of the hon. Member's speech, because he had been doing so well in terms of being constructive. Then he suddenly decided to launch into politics, which is perhaps not surprising in the House. However, the way he did so left a lot to be desired as regards accuracy. He said that Scotland was slipping into slumdom; I think that was the phrase he used. I should like to give him some figures. In the public sector — I presume he was talking about the public sector —improvements in 1979–80 were 33,500; in 1982–83 they were 49,900. I do not believe that that is slipping into slumdom. The number of houses below the tolerable standard fell from 113,000 to 82,000 between 1 April 1980 and 31 March 1983. I believe that that again gives the lie to the suggestion that Scotland is slipping into slumdon. I know that the hon. Member for Maryhill has held his present position for only a short time, but if he wishes to maintain his credibility — credibility is, after all, important—I hope that he will study the figures before he makes the type of statement that he has.

Mr. Craigen: I do not believe that I need lessons on credibility from the Minister. Will he confirm that 94,000 local authority houses built before the war are still awaiting modernisation?

Mr. Ancram: There are 82,000 houses which remain below a tolerable standard. The problem appears to be manageable when set against an improvement of 37,000 houses in the past five years. That puts the matter into context.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) made a useful contribution. I shall bear in mind a great deal of what he said in drawing up a scheme. He was correct to say that one of the things we must do is to publicise the scheme. I said in Committee that I would not just provide a summary of the comments made in consultations but that I would ensure that a draft copy of the regulations would be available for comment before they are formally laid before the House. I hope that in that way I shall allow hon. Members a chance to comment upon them before they are laid. As I said throughout the Committee, it is my intention to try to produce a workable scheme. I believe that the only way in which I can do that is by listening to the constructive comments that have been made.
The hon. Member for Maryhill raised this point, and I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to tell him the general lines of the submissions that have been made in response to the consultation paper. One of the reasons for that is that, although the deadline for comments was 31 December, some late submissions are still coming in. In particular, my Department will be meeting COSLA to hear its detailed view on the scheme. In the time available, the

convention could only submit its preliminary comments in writing. I am considering how best to make a summary of the comments available. It will be done as quickly as possible once they have all been received. I am sure that the House would not wish me to give part of the comments and perhaps get the context wrong as a result.
I have listened to the valid points that hon. Members have made and they will be taken into account in arriving at the eventual draft regulations.
I was delighted to hear that new clause 14 was putting flesh on the bones of the Labour manifesto.

Mr. Dewar: Who said that?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asks who said that. The hon. Member for Provan made it clear that this came from the manifesto. I remember that in Committee he was the first person to point out that there had been a commitment to a right to repair in the Labour manifesto.
In Committee we had a full discussion of the principles behind this type of amendment. As I said, I sympathised with the aim of improving repair services offered to all tenants including those, who for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to take advantage of the proposed right to repair. I am still not convinced that the amendments are the best way to achieve that.
New clause 14 provides that secure tenants shall have the right to repair carried out by their landlords. However, tenants, whether secure or not, already have this right under common law, as I am sure the hon. Member for Garscadden knows from his legal background. Where a repair is the responsibility of the landlord, his duty to carry out that repair must of necessity imply a right on the part of the tenant to have the repair carried out. I assume that, when read with amendment No. 6, the new clause is intended to give tenants the means of enforcing that right if the landlord fails to carry out repairs within a reasonable period. However, tenants already have legal remedies available to secure the carrying out of repairs that their landlord fails to do. I am prepared to repeat to the hon. Member for Maryhill the example of the tenants' common law right to withhold their rent and use the amount held back to pay a contractor to carry out the repairs.
Amendment No. 6 is intended to set out the procedures under which tenants may exercise that right. It provides that landlords must draw up a programme that will list the repairs for which the landlord is responsible, classify them according to their urgency, specify the time limits within which the repairs will be carried out and establish a method for resolving disputes. I hope that that is a fair summary of the amendment.
Tenants should, of course, already know of the repairs for which their landlord is responsible. They are defined in statute — section 8 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 — and any additional repairing obligations are listed in their tenancy agreement. However, the amendment proposes—this is novel—that the landlord should be required to "prioritise" those repairs and state the time limits within which they will be undertaken. I have always followed the language of the hon. Member for Garscadden with much interest. Although I have consulted many dictionaries, I cannot find the word "prioritise" in any of them. I wondered whether that was a new Scottish word that he had discovered which was not yet included


in the Scottish dictionary. However, it is the hon. Gentleman's amendment, so I am not answerable for that word.
Presumably the intention is that the landlord should classify the repairs according to their urgency. However, it is left entirely to the discretion of the landlord to decide what time limits to set. Where the repair services are already unsatisfactory, there is no incentive on the landlord to improve.
The main objection to the amendment is that it fails to say what sanctions there will be for tenants if their landlord does not carry out the repairs within the time limits, which he will set. Admittedly, there is to be some vague machinery for resolving disputes, but that machinery is itself to be set up by the landlord, so it can hardly be considered impartial. There is to be no penalty or sanction against landlords who fail to meet their undertakings. Therefore, the amendment has no teeth. It is largely a presentational exercise and adds little or nothing to tenants' existing common law rights.

Mr. Dewar: Absolutely.

Mr. Ancram: If the amendment is the flesh on the bones of the Labour manifesto and has no teeth, perhaps that is the best sign so far that the Labour party has not changed.
We have adopted a different approach in our right-to-repair scheme. We believe that it is desirable that tenants should be given a general right to carry out repairs themselves and to be repaid and that that will meet the wishes of the many tenants who are able and, indeed, anxious to get the work done themselves. It is consistent with our aim of giving tenants as much freedom as possible to live in their own homes in the way they choose and will be a significant addition to the rights already available under the tenants' charter, including the right to improve. It seems strange that the right to improve should exist but the equivalent right to repair is not available.
To provide that landlords must set themselves time limits within which they will undertake to carry out repairs is a much less useful provision from the tenants' point of view. It is already open to landlords to undertake to carry out certain repairs within specified time limits on a voluntary basis. That might be commended as an example of good practice. This group of amendments, however, which leaves the most important details to the landlord, could be successful in improving repair services only if the provisions have the wholehearted support of the landlord. Even the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) might feel that in certain situations he could not put his hand on his heart and say that he would get that from his own district council. However, where such support exists, a statutory requirement is unnecessary. Where such support does not exist, the provision is likely to be ineffective. Unlike the Government's proposed scheme, the amendments would add nothing of substance to tenants' existing rights and I hope that the Opposition will withdraw them. If they will not, I must ask the House to reject them.
Regarding the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I listened carefully to what he said in its support. Again, I believe it to be misconceived. He expressed concern on two, points which he had also made in Committee. The first was that the

introduction of the right to repair would lead to an overall increase in an authority's expenditure on management and maintenance. The second was that the right-to-repair scheme could lead to a situation where an undue proportion of the resources available for expenditure on management and maintenance would be required to make statutory payments to tenants who carried out repairs under the scheme.
As I indicated in Committee, I consider those concerns to be unfounded. Under the proposed scheme, as the hon. Member may recall from the consultation document, tenants will be entitled only to carry out repairs that are necessary and would otherwise be the responsibility of their landlord. The scheme will not, therefore, result in authorities having to pay for any repairs that they would not have had to carry out and pay for in any case. The type of repairs that we are looking at are inevitably reasonably small. We discussed in Committee the type of cost limit that would be put on them. They would be short-term to medium-term repairs that would, in any case, be carried out by any responsible authority within the course of a financial year. In such circumstances, unless the authority has been dilatory in carrying out repairs that were necessary, I do not see why there should be any effect on that authority's budget.
I recognise that some authorities have argued that it will cost them more to administer the scheme, but that depends very much on the arrangements that they adopt. I must say again that the experience in some of the English schemes suggests that an authority may well make savings on its expenditure on management and maintenance. Similarly, because the right to repair will not alter an authority's financial responsibility with regard to repairs, the introduction of such a right should not pose any insuperable problem for authorities in making adequate provision in budgets for all necessary repairs.
I hope that, given these views, the hon. Member will reconsider carefully the points that he made, because his fears seem to be groundless.
Having said that, I return to the point that I made earlier. I wish to see the right-to-repair scheme work. I am prepared to listen to constructive comments. The principle has been accepted by the House in the Second Reading of the Bill and I believe that, given the constructive approach adopted by many people outside the House, we shall have, when we lay draft regulations before the House—which I have said I will make available before that—a scheme that will be workable.

Mr. Dewar: There was a slight air of unreality about this debate in having the Under-Secretary lecturing us about credibility and showing a certain unwelcome determination in going to the very end of a very long and complicated script that had obviously been given to him.
Of course we are all united in the wish to improve services where repairs are concerned. We all accept that there are very real problems here, largely due to inadequate resources and funding. I do not want to run through the arguments at any length. The scheme that is at the moment in draft and that we have had an opportunity of looking at still seems to many of us to have quite considerable difficulties in terms of the practical administration of a right-to-repair scheme. Certainly all the advice that I have had, not just from district councils but from other professional people in housing management, suggests that there will be a great administrative on-


cost which will increase with the rate of take-up of the scheme. I believe that there will be very considerable problems for those who have to administer the scheme in terms, for example, of arguments about which jobs fall within the ambit of the scheme, inspection before and after work is carried out and half a hundred other problems referred to extensively not just today but much more fully in Committee.
Let me make it clear also that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), I have done my best to consult in my local area not just the Glasgow Forum of Housing Associations and the Glasgow Council of Tenants, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and I have talked. In my own constituency, the community councillors in Knightswood, Drumchapel and Temple, areas very much affected in the west of Glasgow, feel almost unanimously that, although it may be a worthy objective to try to improve the repair service, this is in many ways misconceived in its approach. There is an understandable feeling that there is a sort of escapism here and that it is an attempt to get round the fact that, as a look at the housing support grant figures and housing finance in general shows, the problems are very much to be laid at the Government's door.
We would like to find the right solution. The Minister was good enough to say that he had a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of new clause 14. He went on—and it is always possible to do this in complicated matters when one is in Government—to make a large number of points about the way in which the spirit of new clause 14 had been translated into actual amendments. That is no doubt true, and no doubt it contains many faults. We hold to the view that tenants should be given the right to have repairs carried out and that they should be given the means to do so. It is in support of that principle that we hold to new clause 14 and the associated amendments, and invite the House to divide in their support.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 194.

Division No. 128]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dormand, Jack


Barron, Kevin
Douglas, Dick


Beckett. Mrs Margaret
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Q.


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellis, Raymond


Blair, Anthony
Evans, John (St. Helens )


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bruce, Malcolm
Fisher, Mark


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Forrester, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foulkes, George


Clay, Robert
Freud, Clement


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(Bristol S.)
George, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Gourlay, Harry


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Corbett, Robin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M.
Haynes, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dalyell, Tam
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Home Robertson, John


Deakins, Eric
Howells, Geraint





Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnston, Russell
Parry, Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Patchett, Terry


Kennedy, Charles
Pavitt, Laurie


Kirkwood, Archibald
Penhaligon, David


Lambie, David
Pike, Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prescott, John


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Randall, Stuart


Litherland, Robert
Richardson, Ms Jo


Loyden, Edward
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Martin, Michael
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert


Maynard, Miss Joan
White, James


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, William
Wilson, Gordon


Mikardo, Ian



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. James Hamilton and


O'Brien, William
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Dicks, T.


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Denshore


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dunn, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Anthony
Eyre, Reginald


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon, William
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Sir Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freeman, Roger


Body, Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Galley, Roy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, W. S.
Hayes, J.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Couchman, James
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Crouch, David
Hooson, Tom






Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Murphy, Christopher


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Needham, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Onslow, Cranley


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Osborn, Sir John


Key, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Knowles, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Knox, David
Pollock, Alexander


Lang, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Latham, Michael
Powley, John


Lawler, Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lee, John (Pendle)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Raffan, Keith


Lightbown, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lilley, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lord, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Spence, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David John.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Trippier, David


Mates, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mather, Carol
Walden, George


Maude, Francis
Walker, Bill (Tside N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Warren, Kenneth


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Watson, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mellor, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Merchant, Piers
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Miller, Hal (B'grove)



Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Moate, Roger
Mr. John Major.


Monro, Sir Hector

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

CALCULATION OF DISCOUNT AND PERIOD OF OCCUPATION

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

No. 2, in page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (4). —[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 2

ADDITIONAL CLASSES OF PERSONS PROVIDING DWELLING-HOUSES TENANCY OF WHICH COUNTS IN DETERMINING THE QUALIFYING PERIOD FOR RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND CALCULATION OF DISCOUNT

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
'(3) The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) above shall have no effect as regards any application to purchase where the offer to sell was served in accordance with section 2(2) of the 1980 Act (whether by the landlord or, under section 7(3)(a) of that Act, by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland) before the date of commencement of this Act. '.

This fairly simple technical amendment provides for transitional provisions to coverclause 2, on the same basis as most now approved for clause 1. That is, a tenant who has submitted an application to purchase at the time that the Bill takes effect but has not received an offer to sell shall—if he stands to benefit from the provisions of clause 2—be entitled to an offer on the basis of the law as amended; and a tenant who has received an offer to sell on the old basis but not yet accepted it will be entitled to withdraw his application and submit a fresh one to take advantage of the changes in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 37, leave out from 'be' to '; and' in line 38 and insert
'determined in such manner as the regulations may specify'
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that regulations setting up the right-to-repair scheme may provide for disputes arising under the scheme to be referred to arbitration rather than the sheriff court.
When the right to repair was discussed in Committee, hon. Members on both sides expressed concern that tenants might be deterred from pursuing disputes before the sheriff because they might find the procedures involved complex or forbidding. It is clear from the wider consultations that many people who have been asked to comment on the scheme share these concerns.
The majority of disputes arising under the scheme are likely to be of a technical nature—for example, over the adequacy of a repair or the appropriate level of payment. In Committee I accepted that there was merit in the suggestion that disputes of a technical nature might be settled by an independent arbiter, for example, a man of skill. I have tabled the amendment in response to representations. I hope that in the light of the acceptance that the suggestion found in Committee the amendment will be welcomed and approved.

Mr. McQuarrie: I do not propose to detain the House long, but I spoke at length in Committee on the subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on agreeing to table the amendment. The amendment uses the words
determined in such manner as the regulations may specify".
May we have an assurance that when the draft regulations are introduced the Minister will have full details of the regulations? With that assurance, we shall be satisfied that not all problems will be referred to the sheriff, but that they will be referred to technical people when that is necessary.

Mr. Ancram: The wording of the amendment will allow us in making the regulations setting up the scheme to provide for disputes to be referred to arbitration as an alternative to the sheriff, if a simple and workable procedure can be devised. Clearly, in working out the draft regulations, we shall wish to give careful thought to this matter, in the light of all the comments that we have received, not least those that we have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting. the Tenants' Rights. Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New schedule

REPEALS

Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1980 c. 52.
Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.
In section 1(12), in paragraph (iii) of the definitionof "occupation", the words "in the discretion of the landlord,".Section 2(10)


1981 c. 23.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Scotland) Act 1981.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 40(c).


1981 c. 59.
Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland)Act 1981.
Section 13(12)(b).'

—[Mr. Ancram]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

10 pm

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our election manifesto pledged us to extend the right to buy and also to strengthen the tenants' charter to give tenants a right to carry out repairs themselves and be reimbursed. The Bill fulfils those commitments.
May I say to those Opposition Members who are making such a noise that I have sat in this Chamber since 2.30, and until about half an hour ago I had not noticed that the requirement of haste had been met in any of the speeches that came from those Benches.
Under the Bill's provisions we have increased the maximum discount which long-term tenants may receive under the right to buy, from 50 per cent. to a new level of 60 per cent. after 30 years. We have acted to replace the landlord's discretion to count time spent as the child of a tenant—a discretion which a number of landlords had not operated fairly—with an obligation to count such time.
Throughout the Bill the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and his colleagues have made clear their opposition to these changes. I wanted to say a few words because, since Second Reading, I have been asking the official Opposition to tell us their position on the sale of council houses. I am now told by the hon. Gentleman who is the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland that I am not likely to get that information tonight. Having gone through a Bill of this nature, which is of such importance to council tenants, it is quite amazing that the official Opposition are not yet in a position to tell us their policy on the matter. This dithering and havering by them gives a greater justification to legislation of this kind than I should have thought possible. It is for that reason that I believe that the Bill is a major contribution to our objective of enlarging choice in home ownership and extending the rights of tenants. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Craigen: If this little Bill is the fulfilment of the Tory manifesto, all I can say is that it is a hoodwinkers' charter. The majority of tenants that we represent are more concerned about higher rents and rent premiums than they are about the proposed increases in the discounts for sales.
The main concern during the course of the Bill was about section 17A and the enabling legislation. If the Government were as concerned about an alternative mechanism for the right to repair, I suggest that they ought to be introducing a scheme whereby those tenants who

want to carry out their own repairs are then enabled to send the bill straight to the Scottish Office for 100 per cent. reimbursement.
The consultation paper on which the enabling legislation is to be based is the big lie in Scottish housing. The scheme will continue the housing crisis and the lack of confidence in housing circles and will do very little for Scottish tenants.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 106.

[Division No. 129]
[10.04 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Denshore


Amess, David
Dunn, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Anthony
Favell, Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, William
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Sir Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freeman, Roger


Body, Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Galley, Roy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bruinvels, Peter
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Bulmer, Esmond
Gummer, John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Churchill, W. S.
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Cockeram, Eric
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, J.


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Henderson, Barry


Cope, John
Hickmet, Richard


Couchman, James
Hind, Kenneth


Cranborne, Viscount
Hirst, Michael


Crouch, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Dicks, T.
Holt, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hooson, Tom






Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Murphy, Christopher


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Neubert, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Onslow, Cranley


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Osborn, Sir John


Key, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Knowles, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Knox, David
Pollock, Alexander


Latham, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Powley, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Raffan, Keith


Lightbown, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lord, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rost, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maclean, David John.
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mather, Carol
Trippier, David


Maude, Francis
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Watson, John


Mellor, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Merchant, Piers
Winterton, Nicholas


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mills, Iain (Meriden)



Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. John Major and


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Ian Lang.




NOES


Alton, David
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Barron, Kevin
Blair, Anthony


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Beith, A. J.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)





Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Buchan, Norman
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McGuire, Michael


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McTaggart, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McWilliam, John


Cowans, Harry
Madden, Max


Craigen, J. M.
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tam
Martin, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Ellis, Raymond
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Ewing, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Penhaligon, David


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Randall, Stuart


Freud, Clement
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gourlay, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
White, James


Johnston, Russell
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wilson, Gordon


Kirkwood, Archibald



Lambie, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. John Home Robertson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Highlands and Islands Shipping Services

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and The North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company Limited and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
The Government's commitment to ensure the social wellbeing and prosperity of the island communities in Scotland has been amply demonstrated over the past five years by our policy of increasing materially the level of support for sea transport services. Revenue support has increased threefold since 1979 from £4·2 million to £12·3 million in the current year. Over the period we have not only increased support but widened the coverage of support payments, most notably to include the services to the north isles.
In July 1979, the House approved an undertaking between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the P and O Steam Navigation company, the purpose of which was to enable my right hon. Friend to make revenue payments to the company to allow it to reduce fares and tariffs on the arterial scheduled services between Orkney and Shetland and the mainland. Under that undertaking almost £6·6 million was paid in the four years ending in March 1983. In the current financial year payments are likely to total £3·2 million. The reductions currently in force are a 30 per cent. rebate on return tickets bought on the islands and a 15 per cent. rebate on all other tickets. Northbound freight traffic is eligible for a 15 per cent. rebate while southbound freight traffic receives a 50 per cent. rebate. The differential rates for freight subsidy reflect the wishes of the islands councils. In addition, the transport of bulk freight to the islands by coastal shipping companies is eligible for assistance and several shipping companies currently have undertakings with the Secretary of State under which the shipping services they provide receive support, which is also passed on to the customers in the form of rebates on tariffs.
The vessel that provides the main passenger and vehicle ferry link between Lerwick and Aberdeen, the MV St. Clair, is now almost 20 years old. Although the vessel was not built specifically for this route, it has given sterling service over a number of years and is generally held to have served the community well. Because of the age of the St. Clair, the company has been considering what steps need to be taken to ensure that the Shetland Isles continue to receive an adequate service in the future.
To build a new vessel of comparable size to the St. Clair would cost at least £20 million. The revenue that could be earned from the service would be quite inadequate to fund such an investment. An alternative possibility would be to acquire another, but newer, second-hand vessel, but the company would find it difficult to justify investment of the scale required to carry out this option now. A third option, given the suitability of the St. Clair for the Aberdeen-Lerwick route, is to carry out a major refit and programme of enhanced maintenance on the vessel to extend its useful working life by up to 10 years. An independent technical

examination of the St. Clair has confirmed the feasibility of such a life extension, and the Government and the company have concluded that this option represents the most cost-effective means of securing the continuation of an adequate sea transport link between Aberdeen and Lerwick. It is, of course, in the fare-paying public's interest as well as that of the company and the taxpayer to achieve the most cost-effective solution.
The full cost of the refit will be about £2·2 million. In addition, there will be extra maintenance requirements that would cost a further £1·3 million over a 10-year period; a total bill of some £3·5 million. The revenue generated by the service could not meet those costs in full. and the company has, therefore, sought assistance from Government. We consider that the extension of the life of the vessel represents a practical means of securing the continuation of this essential service at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We therefore propose, subject to the approval by the House this evening of our draft undertaking, to offer the company assistance of up to £1·3 million towards these exceptional costs.
The life extension work falls into three parts. First, there are costs attributable to extraordinary annual maintenance because of the age of the ship. Secondly, there are engineering and other renewals to meet contemporary standards. Thirdly, there is major refurbishment of passenger accommodation.
The company will meet the full cost of the additional annual maintenance of the vessel. The Government propose that grant equivalent to 75 per cent. of the actual cost of the engineering renewals should be made available. The works include new engine crankshafts and liners, stabiliser housings and items such as facilities for disabled people and the refurbishment of the galley and crew accommodation to contemporary standards. In addition, we propose to meet 45 per cent. of the cost of refurbishing the passenger accommodation. The works will include the installation of 23 additional two or four berth cabins, each with en suite facilities, the modernisation of existing passenger cabins and refurbishment of passenger public spaces and the modernisation of the restaurant and cafeteria areas. We believe that with these improvements the St. Clair will provide a first-rate surface link between Aberdeen and Shetland and should also, incidentally, provide an additional attraction for Shetland's tourist industry.
The present undertaking between the company and the Secretary of State to which I have already referred enables my right hon. Friend to reimburse the company for the cost of the reductions in its charges to users. The draft undertaking which is the subject of this evening's debate is based on the current undertaking and I do not therefore propose to go through it in detail. The differences are in paragraphs 7 to 9 which contain provisions to enable the Secretary of State to make advances to the company by way of capital grant. Paragraph 8 limits the amount of capital grant payable in any case to a maximum of 75 per cent. of the actual capital expenditure to be incurred by the company. Paragraph 9 provides that capital grant will not be payable until the facility in respect of which it is paid has been brought into use except that instalments may be paid in advance.
The draft undertaking is laid before the House under section 2(3) of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960. The Act empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to shipping operators in the Highlands


and Islands but obliges him to lay a draft undertaking before Parliament and to seek the approval of this House if he proposes to make a grant of more than £10,000. In this case, as I have said, revenue and capital expenditure, to be made available in the current year will amount to some £4·5 million. That sum will be met from existing public expenditure approved by Parliament in the Roads and Transport (Scotland) Vote.
I understand that the arrangements that we have reached with P and O, subject to the agreement of the House this evening, to assist in the refurbishing of the St. Clair, have been generally welcomed in Shetland and I am confident that with the benefit of this refurbishment the ship will continue to provide an excellent service for the Islands. I commend the draft undertaking to the House for its approval.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The Minister has been looking at me across the Table for so long today that he probably wants to send me away on a long sea voyage. I hope that it will not be on the St. Clair, in view of the complaints that have been registered about it. I note what he said about the order, which seems to have been broadly accepted on the islands. However, this debate gives us a useful opportunity to comment and to question the Minister on other aspects of shipping services to the isles.
The undertaking subsidises the user rather than the operator. Nevertheless, there has always been a fair amount of anxiety over the lack of publicly available information about the money that is paid over in pursuance of the undertaking. With regard to the refitting of the St. Clair, in view of the Minister's comments about the vessel's extraordinary state I thought that we might be getting a right-to-repair consultation document. There is a substantial element of public investment towards this private sector company's involvement in the vessel's refurbishment. Local opinion would prefer a completely new vessel. I should have thought that, if only to improve the fortunes of the United Kingdom's shipbuilding industry, there might be considerable merit in the Government responding in that way.
As the Minister has been keen to tell us today of his party's fulfilment of its manifesto, would he throw a little more light on the manifesto commitment of the Conservatives in Scotland in 1979 in respect of moves towards a road equivalent tariff? The principle of RET was well buttressed by the excellent report produced by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has gone back into the Chair of that Select Committee because I heard his praises sung in respect of the report on rural transport and ferries, and it worries me that that report may well be gathering dust in Government circles whilst the Government show a certain dragging of feet over the implementation of road equivalent tariff.
There is no doubt that the Highlands and Islands development board has been particularly keen on seeing the introduction of RET because it recognises with its responsibilities, the significance of transport costs on the economic and social landscape of the Highlands and Islands. I hope that the Government will make more positive moves here. They may get a slight nudge when

the Montgomery committee reports, I believe by Easter, on this matter. I am sure it is bound to touch on the issue of shipping services that are such a lifeline to our Scottish islands.
With those comments, I hope the Minister will be able to expand a little more and to reply to the points I have made on the wider issue.

Mr. James Wallace: I welcome this undertaking, which has been generally welcomed in the islands. I have relatively recently fought an election campaign in the islands, and, no matter how many issues were brought up, underlying almost all of them was that of transport.
The cost and the availability of transport is fundamental to the economic and social welfare of the islands. It is also fair to say that P and O ranks along with British Rail almost and our airport services, in that when people find transport does not quite fit their needs or they meet a hold-up or some irritation when making a journey the operator is a target for some criticism. When one takes a step back from an immediate problem, I think one recognises the valuable service that P and O has given and continues to give to the northern isles.
The Minister mentioned the various steps that it is hoped will be taken to refit the ship and the benefit that would provide to tourism in Shetland. I should also like to put in a plug for the Shetlands tourist industry. Not only will the better accommodation give my constituents a more comfortable journey to the mainland, it will encourage more people to go and seek out the delights of Shetland, not just for its natural beauty but also for the specialist interests it has to offer various holidaymakers.
With regard to the Select Committee report referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), even at the time when the members of the Select Committee were wending their way by sea from Aberdeen to Lerwick on the St. Clair it was known that in the relatively near future some decision would have to be made about the future of the vessel providing that passenger service and, freight service in terms of whether there would have to be a new vessel or a major overhaul. The Select Committee in its report stated that a major overhaul could be only a temporary measure. It invited the Scottish Office, without any approach from P and O, to undertake its own cost-benefit analysis and to make a comparison between the costs of a new vessel, a secondhand vessel and a major refit.
Now that this proposal has come forward today I hope that the Government will not feel they have done their bit and can lose sight of the problem. I hope that they will continue to keep an eye on it. I hope that they will not necessarily wait for a further approach from P and O, but will monitor the situation and undertake the cost-benefit analysis recommended by the Committee, and at the same time looking into the possibility of a lease-back arrangement, which was another suggestion made in the report of the Committee.
This undertaking not only enables the Secretary of State to make the capital grants to P and O but reiterates the subsidy measures for freight and passenger charges. I do not wish to detract from anything that they have done in this regard since they came to office. While compliments are being handed out, it is also fair to say that it was the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan)


when he was Secretary of State for Scotland who took the initial steps towards providing help for the northern isles shipping, no doubt under great pressure from my predecessor. It was the present Administration who implemented much of the work done by the Labour Secretary of State.
These measures are of considerable benefit to the islanders, not only in reducing the cost of goods coming in but in decreasing the cost of exports from Shetland. As oil development goes over the hump, the native industries of Shetland, such as food production, fishing and knitwear, will depend heavily on relatively low transport costs for their exports if they are to prosper in the future.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking at Question Time today that a statement will be made about the subsidy for 1984–85 in the very near future. I should welcome even more an assurance that there will be an increase in the subsidy. In the past few weeks P and O has announced its intention to increase fares and charges by 7 per cent. That is more than the general rate of inflation, but no doubt the company has to take account of the money that it will have to find for the refit. Nevertheless, in view of that increase, the islanders will be looking for a substantial increase in the subsidy.
The Government are committed to increase the subsidy over a period so that the phasing in of road equivalent tariff will not be such a big jump when it comes and I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be a statement on RET before too long. I recognise that there are problems in deciding which formula to use and whether there should be a cut-off point, but when the previous undertaking was given on 25 July 1979 by the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), we were told that the Government were
undertaking a thoroughgoing review of the present system of ferry subsidies. When this is complete, which we hope will be by the end of this year, it should be possible to say when and at what cost the Government can honour their manifesto pledge to move towards a road equivalent tariff for ferry charges."— [Official Report, 25 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 831.]
The end of 1979 has been and gone, as has the end of 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. We should now welcome a definite commitment to a date for the introduction of road equivalent tariff and specific information about the cost. The islanders will certainly be keeping an eye on the Government to ensure that that pledge is honoured and that it does not disappear, as did the pledge to abolish domestic rates, like snow off a dyke.
Finally, from time to time there are complaints—I recall that towards the end of last year the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) complained about this at Question Time — about the amount of money spent on the Highlands and Islands. Quite apart from the citizen's right to earn a living and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in the place on which he was born and brought up or to move to the islands if he wishes, it must be remembered that transport is quite heavily subsidised in many other parts of the United Kingdom. Many of my constituents own cars and pay the full road fund licence fee although they have very few miles of roads on which to operate. They do not have immediate access to hundreds of miles of motorway. We thus contribute to the national economy as well as receiving the subsidies involved in this undertaking. If the social and economic life of the isles is

to be sustained, measures such as this are vital. We are grateful for the present measure and look forward to a new vessel for the route in the not too distant future.

Mr. David Lambie: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that when inquiring from people in the Shetlands about the order he heard praise being heaped on the Select Committee for its work and on me as its chairman. I think my reputation at that time was enhanced because 1 was the only member of the Select Committee who was still standing when we entered Lerwick harbour in the morning after our journey from Aberdeen.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It was not the weather.

Mr. Lambie: Not only had my capacity in whisky drinking equalled that of all the other members of the Select Committee, but I had also built up a tremendous reputation because I had managed to defeat even some of the councillors from Shetland who had accompanied us on the journey. I think that was the basis of our reputation, more than what we did as members of the Select Committee.
The new undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company Limited replaces the one which has been in force since 1979. The need for a new undertaking is to enable the Secretary of State to make capital grants to P and O
in respect of the acquisition, provision or improvement of a facility".
The immediate reason for the new provision is undoubtedly the Government's decision to provide support of up to £1·3 million for a major refit of the Aberdeen-Lerwick vessel, the St. Clair.
When the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs undertook its rural road passenger transport and ferries inquiry in 1981–82 it made some relevant points in paragraph 81 of volume 1 of the report; we stated:
However, the return on capital employed by P&amp;O Ferries on the service is comparatively modest, and anxieties were expressed to us that the costs of vessel replacement might eventually lead P&amp;O to withdraw from the service. When we travelled on the St. Clair, which dates from 1965 and is principally used to provide a passenger and roll on/roll off service between Aberdeen and Shetland, we were told that major overhaul or replacement of the vessel would soon be required: overhaul would provide only a temporary solution, and replacement—even by a second-hand vessel—might cost some £12 million.
The Minister has stated that the up-to-date estimate is £20 million. Quoting again from paragraph 81, we said:
This problem is currently under discussion with the Government.
Later in the paragraph we stated:
As a first step, however, we recommend that the Government, instead of waiting for proposals from P&amp;O, should forthwith initiate an independent cost-benefit analysis of the alternative methods of meeting the future requirements for a vessel to serve this route, including a comparison between the costs of overhaul and replacement.
In our informal discussions as a committee we were told that P and O was principally worried about the St. Chair's ballast tanks and the fact that at that time about £350,000 was needed to put them right. We were also told that this would keep the boat going for perhaps five more years, but would scarcely be worthwhile. The St. Clair dates from 1965, and reservations were expressed by Shetland


councillors about a boat of 20 years operating a regular service in the sort of weather conditions that prevail around Orkney and Shetland. In the Secretary of State's reply to the Select Committee he admitted that the St. Clair was then nearing the end of its useful life. If in 1982 the Government were saying that, why are they wasting money now to provide a refit and refurbishment for this vessel?
I hope that when the Minister replies he will answer the following questions. Was there a full cost-benefit analysis of alternative methods of providing a vessel for the route, as the Committee recommended? The refit, according to the press notice put out by the Secretary of State, will equip the St. Clair to carry on for "up to 10 years." That was not the advice that was given to us during our investigation. "Up to 10 years" is a canny statement by the Government. Does it mean 10 years? If it means less than that, how much less? In return for this capital assistance, are the Government requiring additional information about P and O's finances over and above the information already supplied under the 1979 undertaking? Throughout our discussions the Shetland islanders wanted to know how much P and O was getting out of providing these services for the Shetland Islands.
It is correct, as the Minister stated, that revenue grants to P and O have risen over recent years, and the Government must be congratulated on that. They have risen from £0·72 million in 1980–81 to £2·5 million in 1982–83, and they are estimated to be £3·3 million in the current year. However, like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I would like the Minister to tell us the road equivalent tariff as it is directly affected by the order. Will the Minister give the House some information about the level of fares being charged compared with recent years? It is not the increase in subsidy that is important to the Shetland islanders; it is what they are paying in hard cash for the fares. How much have fares risen since the introduction of the last order?
The Committee recommended that all ferry charges should, with effect from 1984–85, be based on road equivalent tariff, which in turn should be assessed on the basis of running costs. We said that if that recommendation were accepted, no special treatment for the north of Scotland service would be required; but that if RET was assessed on the basis of full operating costs, a "cut off' in respect of distances over 80 km would be necessary to avoid the longer routes such as Aberdeen to Lerwick being penalised.
The fact that the new draft undertaking merely continues the previous arrangements for revenue grant and tariff discounts is a further sign that the Government have turned their back on RET and their manifesto promise.
I hope that the Minister will take as much pride in saying that the Government will keep to their manifesto promise as he did in the last debate when he was following their manifesto promise on tenants' rights.
It is worth recalling that in paragraph 72 of its report the Select Committtee commented on the lack of a coherent pattern or strategy underlying the Government's decisions on ferry investments. In their reply the Government said:
the forthcoming need for substantial new investment provides the opportunity for a review of ferry policy … The Government intend to make full use of this opportunity.

Those where brave words, but the Government have not yet given us any information tonight on the result of this strategy and investigation into ferry policy, not just on these routes but on the west coast routes as well.
I hope that the Minister will consider the Select Committee's report again and return in the near future, not with this small order but with answers to the recommendations by the Select Committee, and the decision that the Government will introduce the RET in the next financial year. If the Minister does that, I shall be the first to congratulate him on carrying out the Tory party manifesto not only at the election last year but at the election before that.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I support the points made by other Opposition Members. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), I was a member of the Select Committee that visited the Shetland Islands during that investigation. I made some friends there during that visit—so many that I returned with my family to spend a holiday there the year after the investigation. Far from having taken just one trip on the St. Clair, as my hon. Friend did, I have taken three trips on it.
The people of the Shetlands will welcome the fact that money is being put in to upgrade the vessel. However, I seriously wonder whether the Government are throwing good money after bad. Will it be cost effective to spend money on revamping the present vessel? It is 20 years old. Those of us who have travelled on it seriously wonder whether it should continue on a regular service in those waters for many more years.
The St. Clair has to travel between Aberdeen and Lerwick not only in the relatively good weather that the tourists experience in the summertime, but in gales, as in the past few months, when the St. Clair has carried vital supplies to the islands. Is that vessel up to the job? Should we not take a more radical approach to the problem and plan to replace the vessel sooner rather than later?
I should like to amplify the points that have been made about fares. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the St. Clair is the Shetlanders' equivalent of a motorway. It is not much of a motorway, but it is pretty expensive. The Shetland Islands council deserves much credit for what it has done for fares and services on the inter-island ferries. I have travelled on quite a few of them. There seem to be practically no fares on some of them because it is recognised that they are part of the internal road system on the islands. One could argue that that link between Lerwick and Aberdeen is part of the vital linkage with the rest of the transport system of the United Kingdom. We recognise the complication of straight, crude road equivalent tariff for the Shetlands because they are so far away, but there is a serious problem. The islanders have a handicap about which people on the mainland should be concerned. Politicians of various colours, including the Government, have made promises over the years. The people of the islands are entitled to hear something definitive, and to know when the road equivalent tariff or a necessary variation of it will be introduced for the benefit of the Shetland islanders.

Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful short debate. It is perhaps ironic that a greater welcome was given to my


announcement by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), whose constituents will benefit from it, than by other hon. Members from the central belt who did not have such a strong and close interest in it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that he thought that there was a lack of public information on the cost to P and O of providing the service. Full information on costs is available to the Government. In our view, the return is not unreasonable. If the hon. Member looks at clause 13 of the draft undertaking, he will see that it ensures that the Secretary of State can obtain the information that he requires. Public disclosure is a matter for the company. The hon. Gentleman must agree that there is no sign of great public concern about the matter.
The hon. Member also asked about consultation on refurbishment. Essentially, this is a matter of commercial judgment for the company. It must decide on the scale of refurbishment, but the Government are satisfied that the works are appropriate, and that is borne out by the general welcome given to the proposals by the people of Shetland.
A number of hon. Members asked about road equivalent tariff, a question that arose this afternoon during Scottish Question Time. They will recall that I said then that the Government were studying the whole system of subsidies, particularly in the light of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on CalMac. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, I hope soon, be making a statement on this, and it would be improper for me to go into any further detail at this stage.
Some hon. Members continue to suggest that in some way the Government have been dilatory in looking after the interests of the islanders. I have already pointed to the way in which we have considerably increased the subsidies paid to the islands in both cash and real terms. That suggestion comes badly from the mouths of Labour Members, because I understand that during their time in office there were decreases in real terms in the amount of subsidy paid. Even if they are not prepared to recognise that, I am sure that the islanders will.
The hon. Member for Maryhill asked why the Government did not help P and O to buy a new ship for the route. A thorough technical inspection by independent engineers has shown the St. Clair to be in good condition. In P and O's commercial judgment, the most cost effective means of providing an adequate service lay in the refurbishment programme that is now proposed.
Although this is the best solution for the moment, P and O has said that it will take all practicable steps to ensure a replacement vessel when it is considered to be needed. In all these circumstances, the course now proposed by P and O, with the assistance of the Government, is the correct one. That is also P and O's commercial judgment.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the 7½ per cent. rise in charges. That increase in fares took place on 1 January. As he will know, the subsidy increased at the same time to take account of the new fare levels. As the hon. Member for Maryhill said, these are not subsidies to the company, but subsidies that are passed on to those who use the service. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also asked about the Government's scrutiny of P and O's financial position in relation to these services. The company has

given specific assurances that grants from the Secretary of State will not be included in the company's capital for which its commercial rate of return has been set.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) also asked about financial information. If he looks at the terms of the undertaking he will see that the information available to the Secretary of State is all that could be required in the circumstances. On the basis of what is in the undertaking, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that his worry is covered.
The hon. Member asked whether an overhaul was enough. As I said earlier, we decided to take independent professional advice on the condition of the ship. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's Select Committee was unable to take account of that. The advice was clearly that the ship could continue for five to 10 years, depending on certain work being done. Our economic appraisal of alternative options showed that the refit was the best option. Work on the ballast tanks has already been carried out by the company, and that will not be grant-aided.
I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will forgive me, but I have answered hon. Members at length on so many points that his comments have already been covered.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South asked whether the St. Clair is ending her useful life, which is the most important question. That was the view of the Select Committee. The subsequent technical appraisal, which was carried out by independent experts, showed that the life of the vessel could be extended by at least five and probably 10 years. The ship offers a good service to the Shetlands. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was right to welcome the undertaking. It fulfils, yet again, the Government's commitment to help improve the quality of life on the islands by transport subsidy. That factor has always been part of the Government's policy.
I hope that the House will support the undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Undertaking between the Secretary of State for Scotland and The North of Scotland Orkney and Shetland Shipping Company Limited and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

PETITION

Royal Hospital (Richmond)

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes): I beg to present a humble petition organised by Mr. John Leach of Richmond. The petition states
That the proposed closure of the Royal Hospital, Richmond, outpatients' and X-ray departments will seriously reduce facilities in the area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the proposed closure of the Royal Hospital, Richmond, be reconsidered as it is essential that X-ray and outpatient facilities be retained.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
The petition contains more than 2,000 signatures. I associate myself with it.

To lie upon the Table.

Swans

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Jeremy Hanky: While I wholly support the petition that I have just presented, the serious problem of the conservation of swans causes great anxiety to my constituents and to many other people throughout the country.
I have five objectives in raising this subject. The first is to alert the House, and through it the Government, to the current dramatic decline in the number of swans on the rivers of Britain. Secondly, I wish to make a plea to anglers to try the new non-toxic products that are available and to try to phase out the use of lead weights. Thirdly, I want to alert people throughout the country, especially the young, about what they can do to help when they see a swan in distress. I also make a plea for financial support for organisations that are doing much to help swans recover, such as the swan rescue service of the Save Our Swans charity.
Fourthly, I want to know whether the Minister is aware of the concern of his predecessor in 1978, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), about the state of the swans, who ordered an immediate inquiry, which culminated in the Nature Conservancy Council's report to the Government on lead poisoning in swans at the end of 1981.
Fifthly, I wish to ask the Minister for clarification on a point of law.
The number of swans in parts of Britain has declined seriously. It was noticed during the 1970s that flocks in many parts of the country were diminishing and by 1978 the famous flock of swans upon the Avon at Stratford had disappeared. Numbers on the Thames have declined dramatically. During the 1956 annual swan-upping there were found to be 1,311 swans and cygnets on the Thames. Between Putney and Henley in 1982 the figure had dropped to 255. Last year, there were 179.
The swan is the symbol of the Thames valley and of Buckinghamshire, the county of my birth. It is also on the coat of arms of my constituency borough of Richmond upon Thames and holds the proud position at the top of the civic crest.
Last year, only two swans were seen to be regularly resident on the Thames at Richmond. If the crest were being designed today, I wonder whether the swan would be considered. In ancient days there were hundreds of swans throughout England. It was a popular dish for the tables of kings. Even Mr. Drew Smith, the editor of the 1984 edition of the Good Food Guide, suggests that to improve banquets at Buckingham palace roast swan should be served to avoid a fruitless death in the annual cull. He also says that it would excite those who dine at the palace. I have bad news for Mr. Smith, a man whose culinary opinions, apart from this one, I always trust. The cull of swans has never been anything but the limiting of the number of eggs in swans' nests. It has never involved the killing of live swans. Not even a cull of eggs has taken place for over 15 years because of the serious decline in swan numbers.
I should hate to assess the state of Britain's diplomatic relations with our many allies throughout the world if,

after serving roast swan at Buckingham palace to the heads of state and leaders of Government, we laid them waste through a severe dose of lead poisoning.
Lead weights are not only the most common but the most avoidable cause of death among swans. I recognise that there are other causes of death. The serious dispersal problem has added to the decline of swans in certain places because of increasing boating habits. With boating comes dredging and the food source for swans disappears, forcing them to leave their familiar habitats and move to other sites such as reservoirs and lakes. Boating also disturbs the river bed, preventing weed growth. The influx of Canada geese has also caused a decline in swan numbers in some areas. I have also heard of how the herbicides and insecticides used by modern farmers cause death among swans that wander from the river bank.
I have figures for the Thames, following counts for the dyers and vintners companies and the Keeper of the Queen's Swans in 1953. Then there were well over 1,000 swans. In 1983 there were well under 200 swans on the main part of the Thames. Of the 19 swans that underwent a post-mortem in 1983, particularly from the Kingston-Richmond stretch, 17 died as a direct result of lead poisoning. Both Mr. Cobb of the dyers and vintners companies and Captain John Turk, the Keeper of the Queen's Swans, agree that the main cause of the swan decline is lead poisoning. I stress that it is not the only cause by any means.
One reason is the swans' feeding behaviour. There natural food is submerged aquatic vegetation which they find on the river banks. When swans up-end they can reach with their long white necks to depths of up to 1 metre. Swans are unlike mammals in that they do not have teeth. They grind their food by the use of a muscular organ called the gizzard. They take in about an eggcup-full of grit each day. This is held in the gizzard and used for grinding. Unfortunately, swans grovel around for their grit and are likely to pick up anglers' weights. These also are held in the gizzard. Because lead is soft, it is quickly ground to a size that can be absorbed into the blood system. The lead is carried about the body where it causes damage to various organs and body processes. If I am upsetting hon. Members, I can assure them that it upsets the swans more.
The symptons of lead poisoning are characteristic. One characteristic is paralysis. This results in the impaction of food in the swan's gullet. The gizzard ceases to grind and the food cannot be moved along, but the swan continues to feed. As a result food becomes blocked, sometimes all the way from the gizzard to the head. That gives the swan a thick-necked appearance which is depressing to see. I shall not go into the other symptoms.
Externally the swan's neck appears short and kinked. Due to paralysis, it is unable to hold its head upright in the position for which it is so well known. Instead it rests the lower part of its neck on its back. The swan gradually becomes more lethargic and gradually stops eating and swimming. The condition declines until death occurs. That can be as little as two weeks after the onset of symptoms. An acutely lethal dose of lead is estimated to be only eight lead pellets.
The symptoms of lead poisoning are seen not only in the white swans over one year old but in the cygnets of only a few weeks. The birds in the city flocks are most prone to picking up weights. These birds are important


because they are the next generation of breeding adult birds. Their deaths represent the loss of potential offspring.
The Edward Grey institute of field ornithology at Oxford university has carried out detailed research into the cause of death of swans in the past few years, and I pay tribute to its careful research, which has added scientific truth to what has long been suspected. The institute's research has been in two areas, one the post mortem analysis of swans found dead along rivers and the other the analysis of blood samples in living swans.
Between October 1979 and October 1981, of 94 swans given a post mortem, it was found that 54 had died as a direct result of lead poisoning, that three had been killed by fishing tackle, 16 by power cables, four as a result of disease, that five had been shot—some by arrows and some by guns — and the cause of death of 12 was unknown. In other words, nearly 60 per cent. had died because of lead weights. That is, however, 60 per cent. of the swans found and given a post mortem. In each period since then it has been confirmed that between 60 per cent. and 66 per cent. of swans are consistently killed by lead poisoning.
These figures are taken from the Thames as a whole, but the percentage of lead poisoning deaths rises dramatically the nearer to my constituency one goes down river. For instance, in the upper Thames and its tributaries, 19 per cent. of swans die from lead poisoning; around Oxford and Abingdon, 57 per cent.; around Reading and Henley, 80 per cent.; and around Windsor and Richmond, 85 per cent. Regular searches for lead weights are carried out in Richmond and between February and August 1983, a monthly average of 167 weights per 10 sq m patch of bank were found there, enough to kill 21 swans.
I want also to beg anglers to try out new weights, such as stainless steel, putty or tungsten shot, and I congratulate anglers on what they have done already. I, too, have spent hundreds of hours happily fishing, mostly on the sea, but my father was, and my elder son is, a keen river and lake angler. The angler holds an appropriate place on our British river bank, which he shares with the swan. I want to help them to live together longer. Indeed, I sometimes wonder which came first.
I congratulate the fishermen, who have tried to be careful with their lead shot, and I praise the initiative shown by the Angling Trades Association in issuing spillproof dispensers. I congratulate match fishermen on having given a helping hand in the development of "Anglers Weight", one of the new non-toxic products that came on the market this year. I congratulate all those anglers who are aware that lead shot is one of the causes of the decline of swans. I merely ask that they try a little harder before it is too late. Fishing is the most popular sport in Britain and I want it to remain so, but I also want one of our most popular birds to survive on the Thames.
My third plea is to young and old people to recognise the sagging neck of a swan that is suffering from lead poisoning. The Standard, "John Craven's Newsround", The Sunday Times through its "Watch" column and the RSPCA have all tried to make people aware of that so that they can tell the RSPCA or the swan rescue service of "Save Our Swans" so that suffering swans can be picked up and cured, as many of them are.
I also make a plea to those who feel able to give support to the swan rescue service with funds. Dr. Steven and Mrs. Zyllah Cooke have done much to save swans once they

have been found to be ill, but it is an expensive process and they are desperately short of money. Other organisations, such as the Barnes wildlife and animal welfare group, of which I am proud to be a member, have done excellent work and have been pointing out for over 10 years the dangers of swan decline.
My fourth objective in raising this debate is to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the concern shown by his predecessor in 1978. The report that was made as a result of the action of his predecessor involving the Nature Conservancy Council investigating the lead poisoning of swans was produced at the end of 1981. It recommended that lead weights should be phased out of use by 1986, and there was a pledge at that time that another look would be taken at the problem in 1984. We are there now, and I believe that the Minister recently received a report from the Nature Conservancy Council. May we know its contents? Local fishing groups are helping tremendously with the agreement to try to end the use of lead shot, so long as alternative products are available.
My fifth point is about the law. The Thames water authority is unsure whether Schedule 3(21) to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, which allows water authorities to specify the equipment that can be used for fishing, applies to the conservation of swans and other wildlife or merely to fish stocks. It says, when specifying the purposes for which byelaws can be made:
Specifying the nets and other instruments (not being fixed engine) which may be used for taking salmon, trout, freshwater fish and eels and imposing requirements as to their construction, use, design, material and dimensions, including in the case of nets the size of mesh.
They would like to know whether that may be used in cases where swan stocks are dangerously low, to restrict the use of lead weights, for a time anyway, so that stocks can be built up again.
The riparian councils, which already own some of the river, do, from time to time, regulate the use of angling rights, and Reading council carried out an excellent experiment recently to see whether a short ban, with the complete co-operation of the angling organisations, would help the swans, as it did.
It used to be said that if the ravens left the tower of London, the tower would fall. A similar tragedy would be felt by all if those majestic and once proud birds, the swans, should ever leave the river Thames.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I pay tribute to the well-researched and eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). If he makes speeches about conservation as good as that, he will be a welcome support to any hon. Member who holds my office. I am only sorry that there was nobody on the Labour or Liberal Benches to hear that speech, and particularly that there is nobody on the Liberal Benches. I not only sought the advice of my Department and the Nature Conservancy Council for my answer to the debate, but also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), without whom it is unwise to move in such matters. He was able to tell me of an occasion when Mr. Disraeli first met Gladstone, a Liberal Member at that time, at dinner, and swan was on the menu. Although this may be a poor story to tell on an evening such as this, Mr. Disraeli recorded in his diary that it was the "best company there".
The subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has brought up is a serious and a sad one. As he said, lead poisoning of swans is a serious problem, which causes acute concern to all of us who care for our wildlife, and these particularly beautiful creatures. My hon. Friend has already given most of the background details, but I hope that he will not mind if I run over some of the ground again, with a few additional facts.
The problem of the poisoning of swans by lead was brought to the attention of Government in 1979, when it was discovered that the number of swans on the river Avon at Stratford-upon-Avon had declined dramatically. My hon. Friend was right to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who was the Minister responsible then, and to his initiative in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked the NCC for a report on the reasons for the decline in the number of swans on the Avon and to make recommendations to correct the problem.
Following an initial consultation with angling bodies and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the NCC advised the Minister that the marked decline was probably due to a number of factors including lead poisoning, industrial pollution, increased disturbance from boating and dredging, and a reduction in riverside and aquatic vegetation. The Minister subsequently asked the NCC to set up a working group to carry out a comprehensive review of lead poisoning of mute swans and to make recommendations for remedial action.
The working group, which included representatives of angling bodies, produced a detailed report, which was published in December 1981. The report concluded that mute swans were dying on the Avon and elsewhere as a result of lead poisoning caused by ingestion of fishing weights, especially split lead shot.
My hon. Friend has covered much of this ground, but I shall explain to hon. Members how the swans become poisoned. Lead poisoning occurs because, to break down and digest vegetation, a swan ingests large quantities of grit and gravel, which are retained in the gizzard. There was much muttering about the similarity between this mechanism and my hon. Friends who work for the Patronage Secretary. I did not hear all that. Swans, unfortunately, are unable to distinguish between grit and lead shot and inevitably ingest quantities of discarded shot when feeding. I am advised by the NCC that ingested lead affects the neuro-muscular system and that nerves and muscles cease to function. Eventually the swan dies of starvation, even though its gut is full of food — a horrible and sad death.
I add for completeness that the report noted also that the incidence of swan deaths appeared to be greater on waters that were poor in aquatic plant life. That suggested to the working group a possible correlation with boating since aquatic plants do not thrive in waters where there is heavy boat traffic.
The working group report recommended a number of courses of action, the most important of which were: first, that the code of practice for anglers, developed by the National Anglers Council should be given maximum publicity; secondly, that the use of split-lead shot by anglers should be phased out within five years; thirdly, that research and development of acceptable non-toxic alternatives to lead should be pursued vigorously; and,

fourthly, that the Nature Conservancy Council should review the position in 1984 to establish how far the programme for action had met with success.
My colleague and predecessor in this responsibility, in a written reply to Sir Frederick Burden on 10 December 1981, welcomed the report on behalf of the Government and concluded with these words:
I hope that all bodies who have a concern in these matters will use their best endeavours to implement the report's recommendations and combine to alleviate the suffering of our swan population and to eradicate its causes." — [Official Report, 10 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 487.]
More recently, in April last year, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, in its report on lead in the environment agreed with the NCC report. The Royal Commission recommended:
Urgent efforts should be made to develop alternatives to … lead fishing weights
As soon as these alternatives are available, the Government should legislate to ban any further use of lead shot and fishing weights … where they are irretrievably dispersed in the environment.
The Government have made the following response to the Royal Commission's report:
The Government strongly support the recommendations of the Nature Conservancy Council report on lead poisoning of swans: that urgent efforts should be made to develop alternatives to anglers' lead weights, and that efforts should be directed to the phasing out of lead in angling within 5 years (from 1981). Research into suitable alternatives is well advanced and the Department of the Environment will continue to monitor progress towards the substitution of lead within the timescale suggested by the NCC. The Government hope that a withdrawal of lead can be achieved by voluntary means, but legislation will be considered if necessary.
That is still the Government's position. It shows our resolve to remove the major cause of suffering to these beautiful birds.
Returning to the original recommendations of the NCC report, I shall outline to the House the progress that is being made. First, the code of practice for anglers, drawn up by the National Anglers Council, was published early in 1982 and was given wide publicity with the assistance of the angling press, the tackle trade, angling clubs and water authorities. I pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend, to the full co-operation of the responsible people involved in angling. That was the first significant step towards a wider understanding among anglers of the indirect effects of their activities. I record my appreciation of the positive way in which all these organisations have responded to the problem. Not only have they speedily published the code of practice but I thank them for their contribution to the original working group and subsequent discussions with conservation bodies.
Secondly, significant progress has been made also towards the development of alternatives to lead. My hon. Friend made that point. Lead has several properties—density, malleability, insolubility and tenstile strength—which joined to its relative cheapness have made it the universal choice of fishermen for weighting their lines.
The development of a suitable alternative has, therefore, posed great technical difficulties, but I am happy to report that various commercial interests have risen to the challenge and independently produced at least two different materials composed of non-toxic substances that might be used as a substitute for lead. As my hon. Friend said, one of these firms has already launched its lead-free product and another hopes to be able to make its lead-free substitute available at retail outlets before the start of the next coarse fishing season in June. It remains


to be seen how far these alternatives will be adopted by fishermen as entirely satisfactory alternatives. I hope that the House will agree that this is satisfactory news.
Meanwhile, other measures are being taken within the trade. It has been recognised for some time that significant quantities of split-lead shot which become dispersed along river banks are accidentally spilled from the containers in which they are sold. Therefore, the Angling Foundation and the Angling Trades Association have developed a spill-proof dispenser which should already be widely in use. It is expected that nearly all, if not all, anglers' lead shot will be marketed in these spill-proof dispensers by the start of the forthcoming coarse fishing season. That development should immediately reduce the amount of lead shot which is dispersed and I regard it as a useful interim measure.
Another of the report's recommendations was that the use of lead should be phased out within five years. I have already said that the Government fully support that timetable which gives a clear deadline of December 1986 and hope that this will be achieved by voluntary means. I have also reported the significant progress which has been made in the development of alternatives. Much will depend on their suitability if voluntary withdrawal is to be achieved within the time scale.
The Nature Conservancy Council has been keeping in close contact with the angling associations and has recently agreed to meet them in February to discuss the mechanisms for implementing a voluntary ban when the results of field trials on the alternatives are expected to be available.
The NCC was also recommended in the report of the working group to review the overall situation in 1984. This it is undertaking and it is well aware of the need to advise my Department on the key question — whether legislation will be needed — when the review is completed. As my hon. Friends know, my Department is always reticent about bringing forward legislation.
I should now like to say something about swan populations, and especially to deal with circumstances on the Thames which is naturally of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes through whose constituency the river flows. Nevertheless, he is the trustee of many hon. Members on this matter.
I shall deal first with the national situation. At the time of the working group report the most recent information available was from a national census in 1978. It showed a total population of between 17,800 and 18,400 birds — a decrease of between 8 and 15 per cent. since a similar survey in 1955. However, comparison of the data from those two surveys showed important regional differences in the swan population. They showed that increases had occurred in the northern half of Scotland, north Wales, and parts of eastern and southern England. Marked declines were noted in central and southern Scotland, north-west England, the midlands, south Wales and the lower Thames.
At the time it was concluded that nationally the population of mute swans was not seriously threatened but that there was a prospect of a continued slow decline. No more recent data are yet available but a national swan census was carried out by the Wildfowl Trust and the

British Trust for Ornithology in 1983. The information is currently being collated and analysed and will be available later this year.
As I have already said, the lower Thames is one of the areas which has long been identified as a black spot. Indeed, my hon. Friend has mentioned a quite alarming situation in the Richmond area, where ony two Swans have been sighted recently. My hon. Friend gave the information provided by the annual swan-upping counts. I confirm what he said and shall not repeat it. Much of that decline can be attributed to the effect of lead poisoning.
My hon. Friend also gave records of post mortems, which I can also confirm. Post mortems on 19 birds collected between Kingston and Putney which were examined in 1983 by the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology, which was named after my mother's godfather who was a Foreign Secretary and a famous ornithologist at Oxford, showed that 17 had died from lead posioning caused by ingested fishing weights. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the institute for collecting and analysing swan data from the Thames, and to the Ministry of Agriculture veterinary investigation laboratory at Sutton Bonnington, which assists in the work of the Institute by carrying out analyses of tissue and blood lead levels and has carried out post mortems on many birds from other parts of the country for many years. That work has added considerably to knowledge of the problem.
My hon. Friend is quite rightly horrified by the scale of the problem in his constituency which appears to be just about the most inhospitable habitat for swans in the whole country. As I have said, however, action to eradicate the problem is being taken and will continue to be taken.
My hon. Friend asked about the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 and whether the powers of water authorities to make byelaws under that Act can be used to restrict or ban the use of lead shot. The present advice is that water authorities probably could use such powers to that end, provided that they had reasonable grounds for imposing such restrictions. That might be important.
Although the great majority of anglers, as my hon. Friend said, are co-operative, sensible and perfectly justified in their use of the rivers and towpaths, there is one other measure that may have some deterrent effect on the small minority of irresponsible people involved. That is the Litter Act 1983, which makes it an offence to deposit litter in public places. This can, of course, include the discarding of anglers' lead shot. I hope that mention of this legislation will remind all fishermen, in particular that irresponsible minority, that, by carelessly discarding lead shot, not only are they endangering the swans but they are technically breaking the law.
In conclusion, therefore, I can do no more than repeat the Government's firm commitment to the phasing out of anglers' lead and to confirm that we will not hesitate to legislate if it proves necessary. Nevertheless, I am sure that we all hope that the cessation of the use of lead shot in angling can be achieved voluntarily.
I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend for bringing up a subject that is important and about which the Government are greatly concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty six minutes past Eleven o'clock.